Conservatives and Global Warming - Page 43 - Politics and Economics

ikestoys · 02-08-2012, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

Some of the sea level drop was due to temporary increased precipitation over land. Most of the rest was ENSO. O stands for "Oscilation." Try reading the article before declaring it useless.

lol 13 you're so blinded by the conclusion you can't see the poor reasoning. What you described is actually, you know, a good argument. What was quoted there was not. It's most likely the author of the article just sucking too.

Benholio · 02-08-2012, 10:26 PM

Quote:

But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

That's some ****ing terrible reasoning there lol. Earlier trends mean it has to continue! Err no.

Article is obviously worthless though anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

lol 13 you're so blinded by the conclusion you can't see the poor reasoning. What you described is actually, you know, a good argument. What was quoted there was not. It's most likely the author of the article just sucking too.

What are you even talking about? The quote doesn't include any reasoning. It doesn't say anything about "the earlier trends means it has to continue". The reasoning is all in the article.

ikestoys · 02-08-2012, 10:30 PM

It's implied dude. Otherwise the point of bringing up the earlier trend is worthless.

I won 9 out my last 10 sessions. I lost my last one. This can not last. What is the purpose of the first statement again?

ikestoys · 02-08-2012, 10:38 PM

Good to hear:

Quote:

Nearly 230 billion tons of ice is melting into the ocean from glaciers, ice caps, and mountaintops annually—which is actually less than previous estimates, according to new research by scientists at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

If the amount of ice lost between 2003 and 2010 covered the United States, the whole country would be under one-and-a-half feet of water, or it'd fill Lake Erie eight times, researchers say. Ocean levels worldwide are rising about six hundredths of an inch per year, according to researcher John Wahr.

While vast quantities of ice melting into the ocean is not exactly good news, Wahr says, according to his team's estimates, about 30 percent less ice is melting than previously thought.

Trolly McTrollson · 02-08-2012, 11:22 PM

Sooo.... after a comprehensive review of the literature, Prof. IIIIIIIkestoys has decided that, once again, NASA JPL doesn't know WTF it is talking about. Brilliant!

ikestoys · 02-08-2012, 11:26 PM

Reading is hard trolly. Nowhere do I say JPL is wrong, nor do I even think the NASA JPL thinks like that (hint: science and news don't normally mix well), but keep up the good work. Why should anyone expect you to actually read what's in front of you instead of just cribbing from some lazy preconceptions?

The article is a big freaking yawn. Yay sea level is down lately. Woot woot it means nothing. We all know this.

13ball · 02-09-2012, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

lol 13 you're so blinded by the conclusion you can't see the poor reasoning. What you described is actually, you know, a good argument. What was quoted there was not. It's most likely the author of the article just sucking too.

The reasoning is in the article ikes, I only quoted the main conclusion, not the argument. Have you still not read the article?

Quote:

Otherwise the point of bringing up the earlier trend is worthless.

Except to, you know, point out that the long term trend is upwards.

13ball · 02-09-2012, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Why should anyone expect you to actually read what's in front of you instead of just cribbing from some lazy preconceptions?

FFS, this is exactly what you are doing when you claim the article "implies" that the long term trend means sea level can't drop.

NewOldGuy · 02-09-2012, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benholio

Is this a study? It really just looks like a book retelling the current skeptic viewpoints, written by a utility executive. Based on the article you linked, this doesn't seem like a threat to the consensus

Dismissing him for his recent role as a "utility executive" is disengenuous. The author is the former German Environment Minister, and a former promoter of AGW in that role. From 2001 - 2007 he was a top executive for two renewable energy companies, i.e. green companies that trade on the coming AGW. He defected after being invited to be a reviewer for the IPCC in 2010 and he found out what was going on there and how sloppy their work was, and he began researching their conclusions.

He was a huge influential figure in the German/Euro green movement for years, which is why every magazine and newspaper in Germany has him all over the front page now.

Trolly McTrollson · 02-09-2012, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

Reading is hard trolly. Nowhere do I say JPL is wrong...

You kinda did. Or at the least, you completely misrepresented the gist of the article's reasoning. You're so intentionally obtuse, it's not always easy to get what your problem with the article is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ikestoys

That's some ****ing terrible reasoning there lol. Earlier trends mean it has to continue! Err no.

Wrong. The article never suggests that "Earlier trends mean it has to continue" like you imply it does.

steelhouse · 02-09-2012, 10:35 AM

Global warming and pollution is a tax, very real.

JrJr · 02-09-2012, 06:23 PM

I have a great deal of respect for the Global Warming Industry. There's never been any case where scary graphs can be converted to such large sums of money.

Like many business models, it's main source of revenue is through fear. But it is far more resilient to drops in its credibility because much of its revenue is through established government channels, like academia.

If I had financial advisors who kept showing me projections that kept coming up wrong and refused to provide me data/methodology to verify the work, I'd fire them.

Benholio · 02-09-2012, 07:22 PM

lol, the "money corrupting the climate scientists" argument is so great. 97% of the world's climate scientists got into a room and decided to pull this huge scam and get rich (??) off of all of this academia money.

US Federal Government spending that is linked in any way to environmental research: ~2.4 billion in 2011.

Revenue of just the top 10 energy companies combined: ~2572 billion/yr. That is over 1000 times as much as what flows through these dastardly corrupt academic channels.

If these scientists were so smart, wouldn't they have gotten BP or someone to fund their conspiracy??

Benholio · 02-09-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JrJr

I have a great deal of respect for the Global Warming Industry. There's never been any case where scary graphs can be converted to such large sums of money.

Like many business models, it's main source of revenue is through fear. But it is far more resilient to drops in its credibility because much of its revenue is through established government channels, like academia.

If I had financial advisors who kept showing me projections that kept coming up wrong and refused to provide me data/methodology to verify the work, I'd fire them.

What's your take on the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study?

It is funded by a non-profit group that has no ties to any government or corporation or profit-seeking entity of any kind. Every single piece of data/methodology is provided for you to verify their work.

JrJr · 02-09-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benholio

lol, the "money corrupting the climate scientists" argument is so great. 97% of the world's climate scientists got into a room and decided to pull this huge scam and get rich (??) off of all of this academia money.

US Federal Government spending that is linked in any way to environmental research: ~2.4 billion in 2011.

Revenue of just the top 10 energy companies combined: ~2572 billion/yr. That is over 1000 times as much as what flows through these dastardly corrupt academic channels.

If these scientists were so smart, wouldn't they have gotten BP or someone to fund their conspiracy??

No no, I'm saying the reverse. Those idiot energy companies have to actually earn their revenue through the exhaustive process of actually generating energy.

The Global Warming Industry builds graphs, software models, and carbon credits. The overhead comparison is striking.

Climate Field == Genius
Energy Companies == Morons

As I said previously, Climate science -- as a business model -- is probably the most successful thing I've ever seen. You can't beat these margins.