This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

To the 34% of American Adults Who Are "Worried a Great Deal" about "Global Warming"

George Washington's picture




 

Preface:  A recent Gallup poll showed that 34% of American adults worried “a great deal” about “global warming”.  This essay is written for that 34%.

Many well-intentioned people are desperately trying to stop climate change …

And yet they are proposing things that will put more C02 and methane into the air and otherwise do more harm than good.

Frack That

Many propose nuclear and fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

In reality, scientists say that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.

As such, fracking actually increases – rather than decreases – global warming.

Are Nukes the Answer?

It turns out that nuclear is .

Mark Jacobson – the head of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, who has written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those issues – notes that nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have melted down. More information here, here and here.

Jacobson also points out that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant, whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently 55-65% coal.

Scam and Trade

One of the main solutions to climate change which has long been pushed by the powers that be – cap and trade – is a scam. Specifically:

  • The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won’t work for global warming
  • Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won’t effectively reduce carbon emissions
  • Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this).

As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.

War: The Number One Source of Carbon

The U.S. military is the biggest producer of carbon on the planet.

Harvey Wasserman notes that fighting wars more than wipes out any reduction in carbon from the government’s proposed climate measures.

Writing in 2009 about the then-proposed escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman said:

The war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?

The continuance of fighting all over the Middle East and North Africa completely and thoroughly undermines the government’s claims that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.

I can’t take anything the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the government ends the unnecessary warsall over the globe.

So whatever you think of climate change, all people can agree that ending the wars is important.  (War also destroys the economy.)

Anyone who supports “humanitarian war” by the U.S. is supporting throwing a lot of carbon into the air.

Dumb as a Mongoose In Hawaii

Many scientists suggest “geoengineering” the Earth’s climate. But that could actually worsen climate change. It could also increase the risk of drought.

Moreover, geoengineering would increase ocean acidification and decrease available sunlight for solar power.

And once we started, we could never stop.

Some of the geoengineering proposals are downright nuts.  For example, “government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of ‘global warming.’ ” Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being studied and tested (and see this and this), involving such things as dumping barium, aluminum and other toxic metals into the atmosphere.

Remember, the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rats (which were eating the sugar cane used to make rum). It didn’t work out very well … mongeese are daylight-loving creatures while rats are nocturnal. So the mongeese trashed the native species in Hawaii, and never took care of the rats.

Similarly, the harm caused by many of these methods have not been thought through … and they could cause serious damage to our health and our ecosystems.

So – whatever you think about climate – you can obviously agree that we should approach climate change from the age-old axiom of “first, do no harm”, making sure that our “solutions” do not cause more damage than the problems.

So What’s the Answer?

If nuclear, fracking, cap and trade and geoengineering aren’t the answer, what is?

There are 3 main strategies which both climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on, because they have big upsides whether or not the Earth is warming:

(1) Reducing soot will quickly reduce melting of ice and snow. Reducing soot will be cheaper than the “decarbonation” which many policy-makers have proposed. And it would increase the health of millions of people worldwide

 

(2) Use specific smart combinations of solar, wind and geothermal energy

 

(3) Decentralize power generation and storage.  That would empower people and communities, produce less carbon, prevent nuclear disasters like Fukushima, reduce the dangers of peak oil (and thus prevent future oil spills like we had in the Gulf), and have many other positive effects

We don’t need fascism to make this happen …  We just need a sound plan.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:28 | 4659142 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Sorry, but you need to read and understand at least the content I linked to before I'll bother to say anything more than it really doesn't matter whether there is warming or there isn't, the whole issue is whether or not what climate change is occuring is primarily natural or human caused.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 23:13 | 4659476 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I did read wattsup, do understand it and I have made my comments.
You're incorrect to assume anything else.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:15 | 4659094 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

Climate Change’s Inherent Uncertainties

Virtually all scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous uncertainties associated with their product. How is it that they can place hands over hearts and swear that human emissions of carbon dioxide are wrecking the planet?

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-cli...

Excerpt:

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion. For that sort of activity, an arm’s-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven. Among other things it would provide a means by which scientists could distance themselves from responsibility for any public overstatement of the significance of their particular research problem.

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferences—this last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.

Somewhere along the line it came to be believed by many of the public, and indeed by many of the scientists themselves, that climate researchers were the equivalent of knights on white steeds fighting a great battle against the forces of evil—evil, that is, in the shape of “big oil” and its supposedly unlimited money. The delusion was more than a little attractive.

The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster. It can no longer use the environmental movement as a scapegoat if it should turn out that the threat of global warming has no real substance. It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity. The current redirection of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day. And in the future, to quote US Senator Everett Dirksen, “a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon we’ll be talking about real money”.

At the same time, the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:25 | 4659129 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

And yet every one of us can replicate the results & find the same outcomes.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:11 | 4659079 nmewn
nmewn's picture

I think all us "deniers" understood that. That the article was meant for the 34%.

I also think (can't speak for any other "denier" but myself) that that percentage would be a lot lower if the MSM (blood sucking statists that they are, in concert with globalists) didn't have an article almost DAILY about it and then never running any corrections or tying the plundering of lower & middle class wallets for their (the statists) purposes, in the same prominent space.

You know, to add some balance ;-)

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:26 | 4659134 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

What are you talking about? The mainstream view is that there is NO global warming and burning more fuel is harmless.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 10:16 | 4660670 Fred Hayek
Fred Hayek's picture

Mainstream of the populace or of the media? The mainstream media reflexively kowtows to the most extreme prophecies of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. The mainstream of the populace is largely indifferent. Your view is the mainstream media view.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 17:22 | 4662802 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The BAU crowd and the fossil fuel interests...

The academic debate is over...

A majority of Americans agree the globe is warming...

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 01:49 | 4664141 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

The majority of the planet sees the planet is warming.

I'm not sure Americans can see past any of their selfish ideologies or fat bellies.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:24 | 4659125 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

I will not use the term "denier" because it's a term AGW "believers" use, no doubt to allow people to mentally equate anyone who challenges AGW dogma with holocaust deniers.  I am an AGW "skeptic" or "doubter."

The links I provided and my comment were primarily intended for the person I addressed it to, GW, but might be useful to anyone else who wants to read highly technical rebuttals of AGW claims.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 17:21 | 4662796 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are an unqualified hack that parades out the same old tired shit that have been demonstrated to be wrong so many times it ain't even funny....

There are no "highly technical rebutals" of AGW....

If you want to show AGW is wrong then you start along these lines:

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-fa...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:27 | 4659138 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

There are no highly technical rebuttals.
Some have tried, all have failed.
Flakmeister is very spot on about finding out where they went wrong and why they tried to push an agenda opposite to measured facts.

There are no believers of AGW. It's measured. What isn't measured isn't fact and no belief follows it.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 07:50 | 4659966 hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Hey Flakmeister...  I don't see you commenting...  were the hell are you????  lol

 

Latest from Greenland ice sheet

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/2014/04/greenlands-icecap-loses-stabil...

Methane hydrates melt in permafrost, etc.. positive feed backs...

http://ameg.me/index.php/methane

 

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 01:53 | 4664143 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture
Four times as fast
  • It was stable, at least until about 2003. Then higher air temperatures set up the process of so-called dynamic thinning. Ice sheets melt every Arctic summer, under the impact of extended sunshine, but the slush on the glaciers tends to freeze again with the return of the cold and the dark, and since under historic conditions glaciers move at the proverbial glacial pace, the loss of ice is normally very slow.
  • But global warming, triggered by rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, has changed all that. Greenland’s southerly glaciers have been in retreat and one of them, Jakobshavn Isbrae, is now flowing four times faster than it did in 1997.
    Now the Danish-led team has examined changes linked to the 600 kilometre-long Zachariae ice stream in the north-east.

and yet dumb Murrikinz will tell me the ice sheets are all growing at a record pace. Is it that Murrkinz are blind, or blinded by ideology?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:08 | 4659060 Winston Smith 2009
Winston Smith 2009's picture

The best site I've found for scientifically literate AGW "doubters":

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

This is site is so good that even the authors of AGW papers bother to defend their work in the comments section. Here's a demolishing of a very recent paper that got tons of press and headlines like "Statistical analysis rules out natural-warming hypothesis with more than 99 percent certainty." Only a small part of the demolishing of the paper is in the article. Most is in the follow-up comments.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/11/lovejoys-99-confidence-vs-measurem...

My conclusion about AGW from a long stint at reading critical analysis of pro-AGW papers at that site - I am absolutely certain that the level of certainty on the part of AGW proponents is totally unjustified.

A few graphs:

Climate model predictions vs measured data:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-73-models-vs-obs-20...

Greenland Ice Core proxy temperature data from 8400 BC to 20th century:

http://i.snag.gy/BztF1.jpg

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 17:17 | 4662772 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Why doesn't Roy try to publish that plot? Because he would be laughed at by experts....

This is how he cooked it...

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-decept...

====

As for the second one, the plot goes to 1855....

Here is the data that it is based on:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/summit/gisp2/is...

So quit with the 3-card Monte sleight of hand, you only fool those that want to be fooled...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:34 | 4659159 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

I've now read several of these articles. I replied to you on a couple.
I was hopeful but it seems there's little scientific understanding there and, unsurprisingly, incorrect conclusions just from the information presented even without going to further sources to disprove a claim.
At least someone attempted it. It's good to see people be skeptical and it's also good to see when those skeptics foul up their own conclusions yet again showing AGW is in fact.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 09:03 | 4660244 detached.amusement
detached.amusement's picture

boy its easy to "debate" when you simply tell the opposing side anything they comme up with is wrong.  "I win!"  stooge.

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:14 | 4672210 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

What's easy to show, as you've seen now in many other comments, is how wattsup seems to be using invalid data. Now the only question is: ignorant, or liar? wattsup is one or the other.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:13 | 4658894 Duc888
Duc888's picture

 

 

Meh, everyone dies.  Some sooner than others.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:35 | 4659162 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

YA BUT the problem with global warming, and with Fukushima, is "everyone" (all humans) die all before a certain date that's very, very near.
That's kind of bad.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:02 | 4662463 Pickleton
Pickleton's picture

" is "everyone" (all humans) die all before a certain date that's very, very near"

 

Nice little apocalyptic relgion ya got there, loon.  And you said people are nutz for believing in an "imaginary sky god" or whatever blather you said.

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:13 | 4664142 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

it's not religion - crops have been dehydrated and plowed into the ground several years in a row in America and in India it's so bad many farmers just killed themselves.

 

  1. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/sns-rt-us-usa-grains-...
  2. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/07/08/drought-heat...
  3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/09/120906-drought-he...
  4. http://photoblog.statesman.com/dry-season-the-texas-drought-of-2011 and from it http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-07.jpg
  5. and http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-081.jpg This corn stalk is typical of the condition of hundreds of acres of corn that was destroyed by drought on this farm in Round Rock on Tuesday, July 12, 2011.
  6. http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-09.jpg Hundreds of acres of corn were destroyed by the drought on this farm in Round Rock on Tuesday, July 12, 2011

still not enough? Deny this with your lying eyes:

  1. Thursday, April 28, 2011 , http://barbarahuffert.blogspot.ca/2011_04_01_archive.html ,
  2. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-54xFgBjoviE/Tbnmf-4xi7I/AAAAAAAACWA/4XIpdlz5Y5...
  3. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ITcbUaA1cvw/TbnmLLmxL-I/AAAAAAAACV4/UYUKtME43F...

You're going to pretend I just made that up? Really?

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 07:47 | 4659962 FullFaithAndCretin
FullFaithAndCretin's picture

Only for humans

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:44 | 4658795 moneybots
moneybots's picture

(War also destroys the economy.)

 

That depends on who's economy one is talking about.  WW2 truned out to be great for the U.S. economy, as we became the producer to the world.  WW2 turned out not to be so great for Germany's economy.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:45 | 4658792 Philalethian
Philalethian's picture

Worried?

At this time, the Bundy Ranch is in the target zone. This is what they are facing...this is what will be unleashed on the American People soon if the crazies at the top are not stopped fast, and soon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIIGdneUsc8

 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:36 | 4658751 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"One of the main solutions to climate change which has long been pushed by the powers that be – cap and trade – is a scam"

 

It is nothing more than a tax.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:35 | 4658744 Goldilocks
Goldilocks's picture

Dr Judy Wood : Evidence of breakthrough energy technology on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vadSaWyiozg (2:24:57)

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:33 | 4658738 kurt
kurt's picture

The ten largest ocean crossing ships produce more co2 than all the cars in the world.

There is a VW Family size station wagon made in America that gets 70 mpg. It can't be purchased or owned in America.

A perfectly operating nuclear plant constantly produces radiation in the environment, between failures.

I don't trust fracking, oil sands, co2 credits, draught, commodity pricing.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:33 | 4658737 whatthecurtains
whatthecurtains's picture

"How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? "

Gee how do the count the 20,000 scientists of the IPCC who meet from around the world in exotic locations like Bali and Singapore?   Give me a break.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:58 | 4659043 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

But...but....they are only trying to help us.........

by flying all over in polluting jets, just like Algore.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:33 | 4658734 moneybots
moneybots's picture

"Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses."

 

College graduates are saddled with huge college loans and do not have the means to buy a house.  The student debt problem is now a trillion dollars.  Obama has ensured a lack of worthy home buyers.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:32 | 4658732 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Can someone tell me what the average temperature is for the Earth so we can decide if there is in fact, "manmade global warming" even happening?

The remaining SUV driving mammoths, thank you in advance ;-)

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:00 | 4658851 SokPOTUS
SokPOTUS's picture

Generally recognized to be about 15C (59F).  So you see; *much* closer to freezing to death than boiling.

If the 'average' dropped to 10C (50F); most of the existing food producing latitudes would be barren. 

It is doubtful humans could adapt their land usage quickly enough to prevent a mass die-off.

Warmer temps, on the other hand, would flood some coastline, and cause drought in already drier climes; but would rapidly expand the arable latitudes to the north of where they exist currently (and to the south in the southern hemisphere). 

Expanding options for farm and ranchland would be far more workable than collapsing options.

The real killer is cold.  As usual, government is focused on the wrong problem.

 

 

 

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:08 | 4658876 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

-1 for you in general,

"but would rapidly expand the arable latitudes to the north of where they exist currently"

but this is mostly correct. Some problems: the soil isn't ready to be used, hasn't been cultivated by humans ever (under snow & ice) or has been abel to support only hardy wild shrubs to date. They have value but we're not eating them or feeding them to live stock now.

Also the high heat without irrigation to compensate is killing crops already in America. Lots of corn, burned brown, was tilled into the soil year after year. What else can you do.

Cooling is not a problem: we are not trending colder and before a glacial age can happen there won't be any humans left, several hundred thousand years later than today. It's not happening while the human species is alive on Earth.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:25 | 4658935 SokPOTUS
SokPOTUS's picture

MDBogus obviously has a time machine, has gone through the apocalypse and has lived to tell about it.

The Little Ice Age just ended in 1850.  *Obviously*, we are warming.  We will likely continue to warm slowly for centuries, even millenia coming out of the period that lasted several hundred years after the middle ages until 1850.  Probably until we get nearly half the way through time to the onset of the next ice age; whereupon we will start to cool.

But as you say, we will not be here to see it.  In the meantime, there is nothing we can do to prevent either.  Pure Hubris.

Several billon more years of this ice age/heating cycle, and the sun will become a red giant and swallow us whole.

So what?

Who ever said that this speck in the cosmos would go on unmolested for all eternity?

In the meantime; if you don't subject me to your neuroses, I won't subject you to mine.

I promise you; you won't like mine.

 

 

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 19:48 | 4662732 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

So warming implies heat flow, where is coming from and where did it go in the first place?

So why has the sun stopped driving the observed change in temperatures?

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:40 | 4658982 SokPOTUS
SokPOTUS's picture

.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 19:56 | 4658840 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"Can someone tell me what the average temperature is for the Earth"

Which years?

Since it's warming now there is no average stable temperature across decades or centuries but for a given  year you can still get a number.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 20:32 | 4658974 nmewn
nmewn's picture

There is always an average, taken from the first known (or surmised) till the present.

I see below someone posits 59 degrees, so lets run with that. NOAA says (since keeping records from 1880)...2013 (the year just passed) was "on average" 47.3.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Lower than expectations, perhaps? ;-)

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 10:46 | 4664985 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

nmewm

THis the is figure you want:

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/Ahmed_2013_paleo_fig4.jpg

Figure 1: a) Previously published Northern Hemisphere 30-year-mean temperaturereconstructions relative to the 1961–1990 reference period. b) Standardized 30-year-mean temperatures averaged across all seven continental-scale regions. Blue symbols are area-weighted averages, and bars show 25th and 75th unweighted percentiles to illustrate the variability among regions; open black boxes are unweighted medians. The red line is the 30-year-average annual global temperature from the HadCRUT4 instrumental time series relative to 1961–1990, and scaled visually to match the standardized values over the instrumental period.

-----

The abrupt change in the slope compared to  almost 2000 years of "natural variability" is a smoking gun with our fingerprints on it...

Lawyerlike obfuscation is not how science is done, no matter how much you want it to be so...

And if you knew anything about measurement theory and error analysis you would know that working with differences as opposed to absolutes allows for more precision...

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:42 | 4659191 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

well if you want to go on that premise of 'average' you could easily fire 100 shotgun blasts into a piece of wood and decide what is the 'average' point of impact, but such a conjecture is meaningless given the spread.
Same here: meaningless.
Same as on price charts for stocks declaring an "average" oil price for 100 years or "support" or "resistance" as ONE price instead of an equation.
The concept itself is nonsensical as applied.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:01 | 4659053 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

LOL, quit interjecting facts and logic in to the global warming religion, would ya.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:43 | 4659195 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

quit? He didn't start. NO facts, no logic. Just a conjecture on how to misapply a mathematical concept to no conclusion.

Offering to climb a shit-rope, one might say.

Mon, 04/14/2014 - 21:21 | 4659116 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...had a running battle with Flak over "data" for a little bit. The man has blinders on or derives his living from it.

I pointed out that, a lot of places "data" is collected from are from stations located next to heat zones, like asphalt parkings lots, car/truck exhaust, air conditioning exhaust, on roofs (more air conditioning exhaust) etc.

But the data he's looking at speaks for itself! Easily said, sitting behind a desk.

We could be headed into another ice age and he would be completely shocked and argue against it, because...data.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 19:42 | 4663329 acetinker
acetinker's picture

Nme, where ya' reckon flak is?  I almost always disagreed, but I recognized a worthy opponent.  The arguments were cogent, if mis-informed.

Did flak just give up on the rabble that populates these pages?  Did flak's handlers miss a payment?  I dunno, all I know is that he/she is conspicuously missing from this thread.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 19:47 | 4663350 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

And you continue to be one of the most clueless posters here...

My fuck, your post is directly below one of mine....

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 19:54 | 4663371 acetinker
acetinker's picture

Yeah, OK.  Good for you.  I actually have shit to do, and can't just sit here and look for victims of my particular brand of bullshit.

Did you notice that I complimented you in that post?

I didn't think so.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 20:04 | 4663415 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

I suppose you did, in a somewhat condescending way...

Should I have been impressed? 

Thanks in any event....

Well, if you have shit to do, you should worry about other things instead of playing the equivalent of a flat earther with AGW... 

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 20:41 | 4663539 acetinker
acetinker's picture

I don't know how many people will follow this thread, but I am more than sure that Al Gore is full of shit.  I said you were  a worthy opponent, and you assumed you could win.  You can't.

I, and all that are like me, will one day make you wish you had never spouted your bullshit.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!