Just my oinion

[Oddball]

I know a lot more about Rand than you can just copy-n-paste, Scooter.

And if it's anyone who is the self-loathing misanthrope, it's the American progressives/socialist who projects all of their human shortcomings onto everyone else, while living in complete denial that such human failings apply to themselves.

 

[onecut39]

I know a lot more about Rand than you can just copy-n-paste, Scooter.

And if it's anyone who is the self-loathing misanthrope, it's the American progressives/socialist who projects all of their human shortcomings onto everyone else, while living in complete denial that such human failings apply to themselves.

You are an Ayn Rand fan? I read Rand when I was a teenager and was impressed until gained access to the real world. At that time I had to relegate John Galt to the status of a comic book character.

It is amazing that a political philosophy can be built on the idea that selfishness is a virtue.

Rand herself was totally ineffectual at advancing the cause in a combative scene. She absolutely refused to give interviews without the assurance that she would not be "attacked".

There are those who ascribe her works the title of "groundbreaking" or "enlightened" when in fact Objectivism is just a hashed over version of libertarianism that is just a hairsbreadth away from anarchy. ( many of today's libertarians divide themselves in "mini" or "macro' groups)

For someone of such great influence her followers now number in the thousands and I doubt many of them have not butchered her beliefs into some kind of acceptable mode.

Let' have a discussion of the libertarian way.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

I know a lot more about Rand than you can just copy-n-paste, Scooter.

And if it's anyone who is the self-loathing misanthrope, it's the American progressives/socialist who projects all of their human shortcomings onto everyone else, while living in complete denial that such human failings apply to themselves.

Oh god, thanks, havent laughed yet today...

The entire planet watches and laughs with me...

 

[IanC]

The debate rages on even though 97% of climatologist agree there is cause for concern. Increasingly the opposition is centered in energy funded "scientists" many of whom have no expertise in climate whatever. The sole remaining group that in opposition that has some credibility are the meteorologists, and the most vocal and visible are the TV weathermen.

One of the stranger arguments seen on this board is, "Climate is changing all the time so therefore it is not our fault". Half true. Climate has changed, and in some cases has changed rather rapidly but to use this excuse to sit on our hands because we are reluctant to part with a few conveniences and a few bucks is regrettable.

I find it odd that it is recommended that we stand idly by while the American Heartland becomes the Great American Desert.

As with all things that are both political and expensive it will be left. not to solve itself but to run its course. And run it's course it will.

You will be able to chart its course not by reported temperatures (they don't mean snot) but by something much more deadly. Hunger. Keep track of the famines, especially where they are unusual, Watch the price of food, especially grain and grain supported food. Watch the drought areas and observe how they contract, expand or shift.

It is not in the news much now but pay attention to the ocean and the food harvested there. It is diminishing. Pay attention to the reasons why.

There will be winners and losers, a lot more of the former than the latter.

Cheers!

here is an article (18jul12) talking about the '97% consensus'. it has links to the main papers, as well as interesting feedback from those who answered the polls. even the most devout warmer would have a twinge of concience about the validity of claiming '97%' if they actually knew the background of the claim. or perhaps not, the 'cause' seems to give a free pass to a lot of rather unsavoury behaviour.

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say? | Watts Up With That?

an interesting quote from the article-

But, I would like to put aside any criticism of the methodology or conclusions the scientists behind the Doran, Anderegg or any other similar paper make and reserve my strongest criticism to others that misrepresent them, or go much further than the conclusions. My strongest criticism is not for those politicians, environmentalists, journalists or scientists, that use the soundbite of ’97% of scientists’ in complete ignorance of its source, or do not check the citation for themselves in Zimmermann.

No, I reserve my strongest criticism for those activist scientist that know full well the source of the ’97% of scientists’ soundbite and use it anyway, usually very carefully worded along the lines of 97% actively researching in their field, and then use it to imply that there is some consensus of future dangerous or catastrophic risk, or that certain policies that must be taken, because of this consensus.

In my mind this is misusing the authority and goodwill most of the public still hold for scientists, when attempts are made to justify claims of policy action with a soundbite, or to try to silence any dissenting voice as a denier or holding extreme questionable views (implying others not mainstream respectable scientists) It also raises the very real concern that other activists response to sceptics will assume motives of malign intent (greedy fossil fuel deniars, with the same morals of holocaust deniers, for example) if they seeing leading scientist making these strong claims.

As in the activists worldview, surely only those with questionable malign and/or greedy motives would disagree with ’97 of scientist agree’ that future climate change is a catastrophic danger.

 

[Trakar]

I know a lot more about Rand than you can just copy-n-paste...

I could really care less about your masturbatory fantasies, really, no one cares what you do in mother's basement.

 

[Trakar]

here is an article (18jul12) talking about the '97% consensus'. it has links to the main papers, as well as interesting feedback from those who answered the polls. even the most devout warmer would have a twinge of concience about the validity of claiming '97%' if they actually knew the background of the claim. or perhaps not, the 'cause' seems to give a free pass to a lot of rather unsavoury behaviour.

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say? | Watts Up With That?...

You didn't actually just mention "concience" and "unsavory behavior" in the same electronic breath in which you offered a link to little Tony's political adsurdi...advocacy website did you?....seriously?!

 

[bobgnote]

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Eyes on the Earth 2.0


Just our opinion!

Please explain, if you have a brain: how does solar intensity remain low, but temperatures are rising, while ice is melting? The low solar intensity AND the melting ice should lower temperatures.

The GHG concentrations seem to be increasing. That darned greenhouse effect is working!

Do smarten the fuck up, since the Earth isn't flat, and when a lot of melt happens, it isn't going over the edge of the Earth, dumb-fucking shits and 97% ers (who know this, already).

 

[bobgnote]

Hey, WTF? My thanks button isn't up, on Trakar's posts. Looks like some kind of bitch-job is on.

Just so you know, Trakar, you get another one. You know why.

 

[IanC]

here is an article (18jul12) talking about the '97% consensus'. it has links to the main papers, as well as interesting feedback from those who answered the polls. even the most devout warmer would have a twinge of concience about the validity of claiming '97%' if they actually knew the background of the claim. or perhaps not, the 'cause' seems to give a free pass to a lot of rather unsavoury behaviour.

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say? | Watts Up With That?...

You didn't actually just mention "concience" and "unsavory behavior" in the same electronic breath in which you offered a link to little Tony's political adsurdi...advocacy website did you?....seriously?!

interesting....

WUWT tracks all the news in climate science, and in fact provides more links to run down the stories to the original sources than anywhere else on the internet but you consider anything mentioned there as tainted by political absurdity and advocacy? have you read any pro-AGW sites? at least Watts allows comments from 'the other side' and doesnt make wholesale changes to his articles like SkepticalScience does.

where do you get your news from? I have heard a lot of posters who say they only read published peer reviewed papers. I dont have access to paywalled papers, and more importantly, I dont have the expertise to be able to pick out the weaknesses (usually). there are a large number of 'citizen scientists' at WUWT, Climate Audit, Bishop Hill, Climate Etc, etc to give me an overview on breaking information and papers that I simply dont get at Real Climate, SkepticalScience, etc. not only that but the skeptical side is an eclectic bunch that are more than willing to tear apart each other's work as well as mainstream climate science products, whose authors are much more likely to march in lockstep with each other and hide any 'dirty laundry'.

I like to hear as many sides to a story as possible and then make up my mind. I think I am capable of sifting the actual facts and data from a story while applying a different weight to the conclusions provided from the author although I am sure I have my own biases as well. personally I dont see how someone can be as well informed about breaking stories, in a timely fashion, without having an eye out for what is coming out on WUWT.

Trakar- do you have any specific examples of Watt's 'absurdities' or is it just a general dislike of the man?

 

[Trakar]

here is an article (18jul12) talking about the '97% consensus'. it has links to the main papers, as well as interesting feedback from those who answered the polls. even the most devout warmer would have a twinge of concience about the validity of claiming '97%' if they actually knew the background of the claim. or perhaps not, the 'cause' seems to give a free pass to a lot of rather unsavoury behaviour.

What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say? | Watts Up With That?...

You didn't actually just mention "concience" and "unsavory behavior" in the same electronic breath in which you offered a link to little Tony's political adsurdi...advocacy website did you?....seriously?!

interesting....

WUWT tracks all the news in climate science, and in fact provides more links to run down the stories to the original sources than anywhere else on the internet but you consider anything mentioned there as tainted by political absurdity and advocacy? have you read any pro-AGW sites? at least Watts allows comments from 'the other side' and doesnt make wholesale changes to his articles like SkepticalScience does.

Back 4-5 years ago, I did participate on both Real Climate and on Skeptical Science (in its first year or so of existence), but the arguments made by some deniers presented good cause in that there was more than just the science being discussed by both the site authors and most especially the advocacy posters presenting at such sites. I haven't participated upon or read such blogs since that time.

where do you get your news from?

For the most part the traditional corporate leaning commercial, mainstream media press and sites most others use. With regards to my science, I don't do blogs, and I avoid hyperpartisan and where possible, partisan, advocacy sites and sources regardless of which political stance they respect or advocate for.

I have heard a lot of posters who say they only read published peer reviewed papers. I dont have access to paywalled papers, and more importantly, I dont have the expertise to be able to pick out the weaknesses (usually)...

If you don't have the knowledge and skill to understand a scientific paper, then you don't have the knowledge and skill to know whether or not the people talking about a scientific paper know what they are talking about either. You have just removed your trust from the published and field respected professionals who have devoted their life, education and career to the understanding a particular issue of science and placed that trust instead on who, based upon what?

I could care less where someone gets their political views, that is largely irrelevent, but when it comes to basic science, it isn't an issue of opinion and perspective. When it comes to public policy, then yes, there are a number of options and choices to be made and consequences that follow from those choices and that is where there needs to be a range of perspectives involved in the discussion. But when it comes to the basic science, it is what it is, and attacking it because you don't like the reality it presents is, at best, foolish.

Trakar- do you have any specific examples of Watt's 'absurdities' or is it just a general dislike of the man?

I really don't want to hijack this thread into a several pages long back and forth argument about the idiocies, lies and distortions of extremist internet political bloggers. I don't know the man personally, but there is nothing I've seen attributed to him or his blog that garners much respect for his competence in issues of science (or politics).

As a side note, if you don't have a good basic understanding of the science involved in a topic like this without having to rely upon others to explain it to you, then you probably shouldn't be arguing the science. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion and perspective on the overall issue, but it does mean that your opinions and perspectives are not based upon the science.

 

[bobgnote]

The main problem of WUWT and other skeptic sites, which aren't partly as useful is the ratio of propaganda to science is so HIGH, anything scientific is likely to be misrepresented or excluded.

Watt will at least post some mainstream scientific media. Most skeptic sites merely post rants:

Blahblah, warmists, blab, hockey-stick, barf, religion, blahblah, carbon credits, blab, altered data, puke, cult, blahblah, Gaia, arfarf, tree rings.

The skeptic sites' ratio of usable scientific media to complete shitstain is too LOW, for anyone but sucksassandballs or Pig Shitz to enjoy. If you don't like studies and scientific reports, but you do like flat-earth-brand media, redundantly shoved, hey now! Get over to a skeptic site.

 

[Old Rocks]

Odd, but the deniers have yet to put up a site like this.

AGW Observer

 

[onecut39]

Either way, it does NOT justify expansion of government powers or redistribution of wealth. That's the part to get worked up over.

(first off, you do realize, don't you, that the government isn't some royal aristocracy? Here in the US the government is the people, it is expressing the understandings and will of the people, The reason our forefathers didn't want the ordinary, average citizen to vote on issues of governance is because they feared what would happen if we turned control of the nation over to uneducated rubes easily persuaded by rumour, gossip and self-serving rhetoric, I fully understand their fears, but I still have faith in the democratic process.)

And if you really appreciated the ideals of the founding fathers, you'd recognize that the federal government has no enumerated power to oversee climate change or to redistribute the wealth because of weather predictions. But then, we all know you're not a Constitutional conservative.

What expansion of powers do you feel I am advocating?

See enumerated powers and the 10th amendment.

The only money I am seeking is the money that is required to clean up the mess that a very small percentage of people should have paid out of their profits all along, and would have been, if it weren't for the market failure and distortion that let these sellers not account for the externalities of their products. This is money stolen from everyone on the planet. I don't seek to take anyone's money, I just want to see the money that was stolen from us all, put to work cleaning up the mess that was created in our name.

The money that was stolen from us? Be specific now.

Let us say that a carnival comes to town and is allowed, quite legally, to set up in a public park. A week later when the carnival leaves the park has been trashed. Litter everywhere, the grass killed, landscaping destroyed.

The cost of restoring this park is part of the cost of the carnival and will have to be born by the taxpayers. Again nothing illegal it is simply a cost the carnival has been allowed to escape.

Much like the cost of acid rain from a coal plant. Or smog from the autos.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well then, we have the power to tell the carnival to never come back, also.

 

[bobgnote]

Is it my imagination, or did the crazy crowd take off, for the bath-houses, before they close down?

I'm not going back, to WUWT, for more than an inspection, either. Somebody occasionally has to go out and check sucksassandballs' links. It's a dirty job, giving the benefit of the doubt, to skeptics, but hey, they will be extinct, someday, soon . . .

 

[skookerasbil]

Odd, but the deniers have yet to put up a site like this.

AGW Observer

dont need to. When you're winning the PR battle by light years, you can just sit back and laugh about the whole thing. Like me.

By rights, I should probably just opt out of this site and show up in like 30 years if Im still around. Then again, I have waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fun on this forum!!!......and since Bob's arrival, its become 10X the hoot.

 

[Trakar]

Odd, but the deniers have yet to put up a site like this.

AGW Observer

dont need to. When you're winning the PR battle by light years, you can just sit back and laugh about the whole thing. Like me...

Record Heat Wave Pushes U.S. Belief in Climate Change to 70% - Businessweek

A record heat wave, drought and catastrophic wildfires are accomplishing what climate scientists could not: convincing a wide swath of Americans that global temperatures are rising.

In the four months since March there has been a jump in U.S. citizens’ belief that climate change is taking place, especially among independent voters and those in southern states such as Texas, which is now in its second year of record drought, according to nationwide polls by the University of Texas.

In a poll taken July 12-16, 70 percent of respondents said they think the climate is changing, compared with 65 percent in a similar poll in March. Those saying it’s not taking place fell to 15 percent from 22 percent, according to data set to be released this week by the UT Energy Poll...

 

[flacaltenn]

You didn't actually just mention "concience" and "unsavory behavior" in the same electronic breath in which you offered a link to little Tony's political adsurdi...advocacy website did you?....seriously?!

interesting....

WUWT tracks all the news in climate science, and in fact provides more links to run down the stories to the original sources than anywhere else on the internet but you consider anything mentioned there as tainted by political absurdity and advocacy? have you read any pro-AGW sites? at least Watts allows comments from 'the other side' and doesnt make wholesale changes to his articles like SkepticalScience does.

Back 4-5 years ago, I did participate on both Real Climate and on Skeptical Science (in its first year or so of existence), but the arguments made by some deniers presented good cause in that there was more than just the science being discussed by both the site authors and most especially the advocacy posters presenting at such sites. I haven't participated upon or read such blogs since that time.



For the most part the traditional corporate leaning commercial, mainstream media press and sites most others use. With regards to my science, I don't do blogs, and I avoid hyperpartisan and where possible, partisan, advocacy sites and sources regardless of which political stance they respect or advocate for.

I have heard a lot of posters who say they only read published peer reviewed papers. I dont have access to paywalled papers, and more importantly, I dont have the expertise to be able to pick out the weaknesses (usually)...

If you don't have the knowledge and skill to understand a scientific paper, then you don't have the knowledge and skill to know whether or not the people talking about a scientific paper know what they are talking about either. You have just removed your trust from the published and field respected professionals who have devoted their life, education and career to the understanding a particular issue of science and placed that trust instead on who, based upon what?

I could care less where someone gets their political views, that is largely irrelevent, but when it comes to basic science, it isn't an issue of opinion and perspective. When it comes to public policy, then yes, there are a number of options and choices to be made and consequences that follow from those choices and that is where there needs to be a range of perspectives involved in the discussion. But when it comes to the basic science, it is what it is, and attacking it because you don't like the reality it presents is, at best, foolish.

Trakar- do you have any specific examples of Watt's 'absurdities' or is it just a general dislike of the man?

I really don't want to hijack this thread into a several pages long back and forth argument about the idiocies, lies and distortions of extremist internet political bloggers. I don't know the man personally, but there is nothing I've seen attributed to him or his blog that garners much respect for his competence in issues of science (or politics).

As a side note, if you don't have a good basic understanding of the science involved in a topic like this without having to rely upon others to explain it to you, then you probably shouldn't be arguing the science. That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion and perspective on the overall issue, but it does mean that your opinions and perspectives are not based upon the science.

All very interesting that you got snookered into SkepticalScience and other warmer sites.

But then you might not know why I do go to WUWT occasionally.. It's because on HIS site, he ACTIVELY MAINTAINS updates, retractions, and corrections to every blog posted. A practice that is COMPLETELY MISSING from SkepticalScience.

I find that to be COMPLETELY UNIQUE in ALL of the media coverage of AGW. Especially in those "mainstream" sources you so heavily rely on.. Why those living in the NorthWest are STILL laboring under the misconceptions of Seattle Times headline news about oyster farming die-off being CERTAINLY attributed to CO2. When do you suppose they will start covering the NEW studies coming out that fail to confirm this LEAP to judgement by COMPETENT and RESPONSIBLE warmers?

 

[bobgnote]

Well, back when I was calling you Fatass, instead of Fecaltoons, I went to WUWT, a lot, since that is the easiest way to download the Brighton, UK graph, of 400,000 year temperature and CO2 plots. You know, the one you and your skeptic pals can't read, for shit!

You'd probably rather load graphs, not based on instrumentation, and then, you forget to load labels, for the plots or captions, to name the proxy data source, so we can figure out what the plots are supposed to represent. Of course, since you and your pals are fecophiles, your loads are shit.

Most of WUWT is dedicated, to rants, with a big list of sites, where we can find even more rants.

WUWT does have some usable media, but mostly it is a source, for what schmucks to purge, when the Earth ain't flat, no mo, and you all skeptics gotta go.