RSS

Labor Day Weekend Open Thread

31 Aug

A lot to discuss, namely the on going saga of Syria. What to do? I don’t really see any good option, but I do see Obama painted into a corner by his rhetoric and a lot of Democrats conveniently forgetting their objections to our last excursion. What was their criticism back then? That Iraq was not an imminent threat, that we did not build a coalition, and that we did not have an exit strategy. Well I am pretty sure that all of those finer points apply this time around, but funny enough, there’s no mention of those details. In fact I heard Eugene Robinson say the other day that it was good thing that that British Parliament voted against action, because that frees up Obama to act without them. Strange, don’t ya think?

And here’s an olive branch to my AGW opponents. There is no need to get hostile over such disagreement. There is actually some recent evidence that the earth may be entering a cooling period – hence climate change, something we all agree on. What we also agree on is that our society does need to transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy platform, but that platform has to be economically viable, mass produceable and sustainable and in my opinion, the private sector, entrepreneurialism, and the free market forces of supply and demand will turn out the best alternative and in the quickest time frame. So let’s dispense with the “convenient consensus” of government funded scientists, the carbon credit profit center that Al Gore has going, and the high emotion of the “save the polar bear clubs”, and let’s continue to study the impact of our fossil fuel based energy platform, and that of the Sun as it translates to that change so that we can continue to be good stewards of our planet.

Have a great weekend.

Advertisements
 
124 Comments

Posted by on August 31, 2013 in Open Thread

 

Tags: , ,

124 responses to “Labor Day Weekend Open Thread

  1. mitchethekid

    August 31, 2013 at 11:24 am

    I’m not going to rehash the Iraq war except to say that congress abdicated their duty to vote to invade by instead voting to allow the President to make the decision on his (and Cheney’s) own. As we all know, the evidence presented to the American public back then was bogus. This time it’s definitive.There is no ambiguity and no Halliburton thirsting to make money off of it.
    Now this President, who is criticized by the right now matter what he does, has put the onus on Congress. As well he should. But it’s a sure bet he will be criticized for this as well. It remains to be seen if they do the right thing and live up to the American ideals that the right is always focusing on. Let’s hope Syria isn’t Kitty Genovese on a mass scale.

    As far as transitioning to renewable, clean energy sources initial products are always more expensive. In 2002 a 27″ plasma TV was ~$10,000.00 Now you can get a 60″ for under a $1000.00 Same thing happened with computers and their components. I’m sure it will happen with energy as well.

     
    • bardolf2

      August 31, 2013 at 2:48 pm

      What is definitive is that the Syrian government has chemical weapons available. What is far from definitive is that the Assad government is directly responsible for their use. What is not completely unexplained is what the Assad government would gain by using chemical weapons.

      I think clean energy will eventually become competitive with fossil fuels simply because fossil fuels will eventually run out, it will be great when energy is super cheap again.

       
    • rustybrown2012

      September 1, 2013 at 8:38 am

      What we also agree on is that our society does need to transition to a cleaner, more sustainable energy platform, but that platform has to be economically viable, mass produceable and sustainable and in my opinion, the private sector, entrepreneurialism, and the free market forces of supply and demand will turn out the best alternative and in the quickest time frame.

      I’m always annoyed by the false claim that the private sector is the main driver of innovation. Here is an interesting article to the contrary:

      http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/entrepreneurs_or_the_state_innovation_comes_from_public_investment.html

       
      • mitchethekid

        September 1, 2013 at 8:48 am

        NASA

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 9:18 am

        Rusty, you’re confusing innovation with funding. From your article:

        Whether an innovation will be a success is uncertain, and it can take longer than traditional banks or venture capitalists are willing to wait. In countries such as the United States, China, Singapore, and Denmark, the state has provided the kind of patient and long-term finance new technologies need to get off the ground. Investments of this kind have often been driven by big missions, from putting a human on the moon to solving climate change. This has required not only funding basic research—the typical “public good” that most economists admit needs state help—but applied research and seed funding too.

        Yes, the government does “in part” fund many innovative enterprises, that has never been disputed. But where does government get that money? From private tax payers, so government is really just a reallocation department, not an innovative enterprise.

        And you might want to consider sources other than Slate. That publication is not exactly an unbiased source.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 10:20 am

        I’m not confusing anything. When we talk of funding here we’re talking about FUNDING INNOVATION. Private innovation can be funded privately, publicly or a combination of both. Not sure why you’re confused by this.

        BTW, the government ITSELF does plenty of innovation, see: NASA, the Manhattan Project, drug research, technology the list goes on and on.

        Your statement “where does government get that money? From private tax payers, so government is really just a reallocation department, not an innovative enterprise.” is just bizarre and I’m uncertain what kind of point you’re trying to make. Gee, the government gets it’s revenue from taxes? Talk about your points that are not in dispute; thank’s for that bit of info.

        Regarding my sources, you’re the last one to be criticizing. Many of your sources are blatantly biased directly to your point of view and unsourced (I’ll address those below later, no time now). In contrast, I provide links from a variety of sources, the last few from Slate because they are topical, factual, and concise. Slate may lean left but the articles I linked to are well sourced to respected independent research departments and the like. When you can’t refute the facts, blame the source.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 11:07 am

        Cluster: Rusty, you’re confusing innovation with funding.

        No Cluster, YOU are. It’s ridiculous to think that what happens under the microscope is the same as what happens on the work bench, and is the same as what happens in a “limited prototype” operation, and is the same as what happens in a “demonstration of concept” unit, and is the same as a “production prototype”, which, if everything goes well, is largely the same as the end product. If you get to that point, then “economy of scale” pressures could kick in. I think it’s safe to say that over the course of my career I’ve been involved in most of those steps to one degree or another, both in my “day job” as well as most of my various “night jobs”. As such, I think I can safely say that any attempt to conflate one step into the other betrays that which Cluster champions most highly — the success of entrepreneurs — under the guise if championing an ideological concept that is very much opposed to same..

        For the life of me Cluster, I don’t understand you. You may never completely understand me, but eventually I hope you come to your senses AND THINK FOR YOURSELF, rather than the ideological pablum you’ve been fed. For the record, I hope the same for GWB too.

         
  2. rustybrown2012

    August 31, 2013 at 3:50 pm

    Cluster,

    You appear to want it both ways; you make overtures to being reasonable while trotting out AGW denialist tropes. You did not present evidence that the earth is entering a cooling period, you presented the speculation of of one research group (who happen to believe in AGW by the way) on the future activity of the sun, which has nothing to to with AGW. If you have credible, peer-reviewed data that the earth is cooling, please provide it, I’d like to see it.

    Just to set the world right, let me repeat the facts: The earth is warming and well over 90% of climate scientists agree that it is at least partly due to manmade greenhouse gases.

     
    • GMB

      August 31, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      “credible, peer-reviewed data”

      Let’s give this little phrase a fix up shall we.

      What Rusty means is “peer reviewed by scientist who get their funding from the government to prove that the earth is getting warmer, so there is no way this kind of data will be accepted by these so called peers, ever”

      There now, much better.

       
      • mitchethekid

        August 31, 2013 at 9:15 pm

        That’s flat out incorrect. If you think that scientists are biased because some of their funding comes from government, how do you feel about lobbyists? The fact is, the earth is getting warmer, there is no conspiracy amongst thermometers and human activity has an influence. Why is it so important to you to deny reality and why is it that the vast majority of the skeptics are on the right? How to you feel about the ozone and CFC’s?
        We’ve got elected officials who claim that god is responsible, so we don’t have to be?
        What if you are wrong? You till the soil, surely you must experience these changes.

         
      • Cluster

        August 31, 2013 at 9:41 pm

        No one denies that that earth has warmed up, but so what? From the article:

        Has there been “recent” warming? Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period. That time followed a colder period before the founding of Rome between about 750 BC to 200 BC. By 150 BC the climate had warmed enough for the first grapes and olives to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago, Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast.

        Then, around 1200, temperatures began to drop, and Norse settlements were abandoned by about 1350. Atlantic pack ice began to grow around 1250, and shortened growing seasons and unreliable weather patterns, including torrential rains in Northern Europe, led to the “Great Famine” of 1315-1317.

        What I object to is the high emotion of the “end is near” AGW crowd. As they say, this too shall pass.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 31, 2013 at 10:29 pm

        Cluster,

        Here’s a pretty digestible explanation that exposes the paucity your “it’s all part of a natural, self-correcting cycle” denialism:

        http://grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/

         
    • Cluster

      August 31, 2013 at 5:16 pm

      Just an article to contemplate Rusty. Here’s an excerpt:

      IPCC’s 1996 report used selective data, a doctored graph, and featured changes in text that were made after the reviewing scientists approved it and before it was printed. The many irregularities provoked Dr. Frederick Seitz, a world-famous physicist and former president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Physical Society, and Rockefeller University, to write ( in August 1996) in the Wall Street Journal: “I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer review process than events that led to this IPCC report.”

      Several tens of thousands of scientists have lodged formal protests regarding unscientific IPCC practices. Some critics include former supporters. One of them is Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, a socialist founder of Germany’s environmental movement, who headed the renewable energy division of the country’s second largest utility company. His recent coauthored book titled “The Cold Sun: Why the Climate Disaster Won’t Happen,” charges the IPCC with gross incompetence and dishonesty, most particularly regarding fear-mongering exaggeration of known climate influence of human CO2 emissions.

      http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/2/

       
      • GMB

        August 31, 2013 at 5:19 pm

        Cluster, a very good read on the subject. Make sure you read the comments too and check out the links in the comments.

        http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

        It seems someone is late to la fiesta.

        Smiles everyone.

         
      • GMB

        August 31, 2013 at 5:21 pm

        Cluster, check out mr. pachuri’s salary and look at some of the scandals swirling around him.

        Gravy Train Ho!!!

         
      • Cluster

        August 31, 2013 at 5:34 pm

        I can’t find the salary, but one thing I gleaned from the comments that has become a universal truth is how mean spirited, and intolerant of opposing opinion the faithful alarmists have become.

         
      • GMB

        August 31, 2013 at 5:40 pm

        This joker is head of the IPCC “Dr.” R. Pachuri. This will get you on the trail of what the man is actually worth. All on the tax payer dime of countrys that contribute to the useless nations.

        http://www.eureferendum.com/results.aspx?keyword=pachuri

         
      • mitchethekid

        August 31, 2013 at 9:16 pm

        This has been debunked.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 31, 2013 at 10:00 pm

        Cluster,

        When I asked for some credible, peer reviewed data that the earth is cooling I had in mind something more than an AGW denialist screed written by a famous AGW denier for a publication that routinely denies AGW. I had in mind something like the following: you know, something written by a scientist which links to a current comprehensive global NOAA study (300 scientists!, 160 research groups!, 48 countries!) that takes multiple measurable indicators into account, all pointing to the inexorable warming of our planet:

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2010/08/03/new_study_clinches_it_the_earth_is_warming_up.html

        Would it be too much for you or GMB to link to something at least one tenth as authoritative and conclusive as this and not some corporate-friendly opinion piece?

        Speaking of motivations, both you and GMB have cast mysterious aspersions on government funded scientists. Leaving aside the fact that these scientists are not driving Bentleys and buying private islands, and shelving the fact that the majority of the world’s PRIVATE scientists also concur with AGW, what exactly is supposed to be the motivation for this international global conspiracy and how does it work? Are there secret meetings between top officials from all of the participating countries to form agendas and strategies? There must be something like that if they’re all reaching the same conclusion. And to what unified end? It behooves the conspiracy theorist to provide at least a modicum of rational for their conspiracy.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        August 31, 2013 at 11:47 pm

        I meant “rationale”. Scotch.

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 6:34 am

        Rusty,

        I never claimed the world WAS cooling. I simply cited the claims by some Japanese, Norwegian, and other scientists that it MAY be entering a cooling period based on the slow down of Sun spot activity which had been at pretty high levels.

        I don’t deny that the temps have gone up, but I do deny that we have to buy carbon credits, redistribute wealth, and extract taxes from carbon emitters to resolve the problem. I also am very skeptical that it is a sign of the end of the world and that “evil” carbon emitting corporations and countries are the problem. I believe that this is primarily just a natural phenomena of this living organism we call earth, driven largely by the Sun, and of which has happened quite often. I believe there are also benefits to the warmth – longer growing seasons for example, but I will remind you that this summer has been one of the coolest on record. A precursor?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 8:21 am

        Cluster,

        I’m not sure where you’re getting your information that this is the coolest summer on record; for one thing, summer is not over, for another, much of the world has been experiencing record breaking heat waves and here is one estimate saying 2013 will be one of the hottest summers on record:

        http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-summer-in-numbers-2013-the-hottest-driest-and-sunniest-since-2006-8792146.html

        To your statement:

        I believe that this is primarily just a natural phenomena of this living organism we call earth, driven largely by the Sun

        …this is unfortunately part of the AGW denialism I referred to above. To make such a statement you should have some science to back it up, not just a hunch and a stack of denialist editorials up your sleeve. Here are a few questions for you: Do you believe co2 is a greehnhouse gas? Do you believe that co2 levels in our atmosphere are on the rise? Do you believe that human activity such as burning fossil fuels is responsible for the increased levels? If you answered “no” to any or all of the above you should have some scientific evidence to support your belief because your skepticism flies in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary:

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/11/atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_levels_at_all_time_high_for_past_several_million.html

        It will be easier to talk about various courses of action to take after we all accept the facts.

        In other news, I see you have no further comment on your “government scientist” trope. Good. Hopefully we won’t have to address that dreary conspiratorial talking point again.

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 8:42 am

        Here’s a read that might interest you:

        http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/summer-over-cool-weather-dive-south-20130812

        And speaking of denial, I think you are immersed in it. You are aware of the grasslands that use to cover Greenland right? The climate has changed dramatically in times when carbon wasn’t even an issue, at least man made carbon. It’s reported that 97% of all carbon in the atmosphere is not from human activity, so you can stand on the corner all you want with a sign reading “the end of the world is near”, but don’t expect me to buy into the delusion.

        Here’s some other stats you might want to consider

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 8:49 am

        And here’s another read for you:

        http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence

        Look, I am just trying to convince you to have an open mind as you seem to be very closed off to the idea. There is ample evidence to suggest that:

        A. The climate has had dramatic climate swings absent any human involvement throughout history
        B. temperatures have leveled off over the last decade
        C. Sun spot activity which had been extraordinarily high has abated
        D. There is legitimate skepticism to the “consensus”

        Just keep an open mind, it’s always the best advice.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 8:35 am

        Cluster: I never claimed the world WAS cooling. I simply cited the claims by some Japanese, Norwegian, and other scientists that it MAY be entering a cooling period based on the slow down of Sun spot activity which had been at pretty high levels.

        Actually, I’m quite sure the scientists of which you speak would deny they said (or even implied) “it [meaning Earth] MAY be entering a cooling period”. But it’s very hard to verify because none of the scientists were named, and neither was the scientific article your blog article reported on. There was a link in the blog article, but that only brought me to another article written by a “staff writer” in something called, “The Asahi Shimbun”, apparently a popular press publication. That article, in turn, provided a link to a Q&A by the author, and that’s where the trail ended. At no time were the scientists named, nor was the scientific article in which they reported their results mentioned.

        It may be recalled that on the A Potpourri Of Disappointment thread I said this: I have come to view the lack of documentation in articles as pretty good indicator of how ideological they are. Hell, you don’t want facts messing with your opinion when your message can’t stand up to them, right? The worst offenders are those articles that report the findings of a study, of an event, or some other concrete, easily identifiable instance, and they don’t even specifically identify what they’re talking about, let alone provide a link. Cluster has just provided a very good example of what I meant. In fact, it was such a good example that I’m left wondering whether this is yet another example of his curious sense of humor.

        Then GWB piled on with his portrayal of the peer review process as just another part of the Incredibly Vast Left Wing Conspiracy. Add another ring to this circus and you’d have an example of one of the well respected rules of comedy: the rule of three.

        Actually, I think we already achieved it when Cluster followed up with an extented quote “from the article” which “the article” never mentioned — and it sure as hell didn’t come from the authors of the paper discussed (whatever THAT was).

        But I do appreciate the olive branch you extended. While climate change/global warming certainly provides urgency to the problem, the underlying problem is ultimately one of energy supply and demand. That is also a complex problem, not to mention a highly valuable one, and one which, as baldorf pointed out, isn’t very well handled by a simple conception of free market principles. In the interests of going forward, again I ask…

        “Do you understand the concept of externalities?” It’s a very important concept, and one without which you can’t understand much of anything about many markets in the 21st century.

         
  3. GMB

    August 31, 2013 at 6:27 pm

    In other Illinois related news. U of I football team barely eeks out a win against Southern Illinois University 43 to 34. The Illini are a Division I team. The Salukis are a Division I-AA team. As I don’t see any other I-AA teams on the Illini schedule, looks like a 1-11 year for the Illini.

    😦

     
    • Cluster

      August 31, 2013 at 6:52 pm

      LOL. I love college football. Watch out for those ASU Sun Devils.

       
    • bardolf2

      August 31, 2013 at 10:05 pm

      Illinois just won a national championship in 1951. Let the other teams have their chances!

       
      • GMB

        September 1, 2013 at 6:07 am

        I am hoping the Illini go play where you teach at. Just so i can buy your ugly mug a beer.

        That will be probably the only Illini game I ever go see in person and I would not have seen that one if the tix had not been given to me.

        The Cubs. Mathematically eliminated from 2016 playoff contention. The Bears. Just can’t get the job done. The Bulls. Decent but not championship contenders. The White Sox????
        Not even the White Sox players care about the White Sox. When they won the world series here a few years ago more than half the team was spotted the day sober.

        Go Blackhawks!!! Two out of the last three years Stanly Cup Champs.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 9:05 am

        GWB: I am hoping the Illini go play where you teach at. Just so i can buy your ugly mug a beer.

        OMG baldorf’s a professor? Cluster, did you hear that??? Don’t worry baldorf, if it’s true I got your back. Okay, not really — your logic and evidence stands on its own, just like mine and everyone else’s should.

         
      • bardolf2

        September 1, 2013 at 5:20 pm

        ricorun

        It’s true, I’m a professor of mathematics, my Ph.D. is from Purdue University in probability. I’m close to where cluster lives so the the whole ivory tower schtick needs to be adjusted to adobe tower!

        One of my favorite pastimes is explaining why things aren’t going to be as bad as everyone says they will. I brainwash my students by telling them actual demographic data, like the fertility rate in Mexico is 2.4 not the 7.4 they believe.

         
      • bardolf2

        September 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm

        GMB

        Believe it or not, I’m plotting a way to get to UIUC sometime. The problem is that nobody in my specialty is at UIUC.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 6:43 pm

        baldorf: It’s true, I’m a professor of mathematics, my Ph.D. is from Purdue University in probability.

        Oh wow. I’ve heard of Purdue… vaguely, lol! It might be said that much of what I’ve done in the private sector has at least touched on probability theory. In general, it’s a very useful skill to be versed in. Both the gummint and the private sector have a long history of needing people like you to tell ’em what’s what, so to speak, if you catch my drift. ?

        Anyway, all of a sudden it sounds like you’re in some truly deep shit, Cluster!

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm

        How so Rico my friend? I have just been kicking back and enjoying the view of your rigid adherence, and closed minded approach to the “consensus” (which you consider scientific fact) of climate change. Even when I agree with 90% of your position, but have the audacity to accurately point out that human involvement was absent in years past climate events, and that water vapors far out weigh human activity in terms of carbon in the atmosphere you become a little unhinged and then accuse me of being ideological.

        I mean it’s hilarious, you can’t make this shit up.
        Have a great night.

         
      • GMB

        September 2, 2013 at 6:02 am

        “GMB

        Believe it or not, I’m plotting a way to get to UIUC sometime. The problem is that nobody in my specialty is at UIUC.”

        Just visiting or coming here to teach?

        I need to know so I can make plans or where I should move move to.

        I know there is a small Mennonite community in Florida or maybe with those nutcases down in Bolivia. I could probably take that place over and have myself declared “The Grand Phrophet”

        😛

        I have sworn off politics for two weeks. Now I am just going to snark on you all.

        Neener.

         
      • meursault1942

        September 2, 2013 at 9:46 am

        “The Bears. Just can’t get the job done.”

        How can you have so little faith in Jay Cutler?

        …oh, right. Because of all that stuff he’s done (or hasn’t done, as the case may be).

        As for the Bulls, I can’t say I’m a Bulls fan, but I really like that team right now–hustle, defense, and a nice mean streak. I was rooting for them like crazy against Miami last year, but they just ran out of gas.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 2, 2013 at 10:18 am

        Cutler better step up this year. It’s the last year of his contract and he’s been given a lot of tools to work with. If he doesn’t have a great year they should dump him and move on.

         
    • rustybrown2012

      September 1, 2013 at 8:33 pm

      Hey GMB!

      I’m a native Chicagoan from the north side who is a lifelong Bears fan. I bleed orange and blue. this is a transition year for us but don’t tuck your tail yet – a lot of talent on that team (and no Lovie). I’m too jaded with the Cubs to care anymore but yes – GO HAWKS!

       
  4. Cluster

    September 1, 2013 at 6:53 am

    Allow me just to vent here a bit after reading the following from Syria:

    DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) – A Syrian state-run newspaper on Sunday called President Barack Obama’s decision to seek congressional approval before taking military action against Syria “the start of the historic American retreat.”

    Who gives a fuck what these barbaric cock roaches think anymore? I am done with these fucked up, barbaric, disgusting, violent Islamists who oppress their women, and wage war against any perceived slight against their oh so sensitive religious doctrines. I hope they kill each other off, the world would be a better place without them. In fact, if I was POTUS, I would simply say that we are choosing not to intervene because we just don’t care about them. In fact we have decided to send more arms and munitions so that they can complete the task of killing themselves off.

    End rant.

     
    • rustybrown2012

      September 1, 2013 at 8:26 am

      Sorry, that’s a bit harsh, to say the least. We are talking about plenty of innocent victims here; innocent children.

       
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 8:52 am

        Allow me to play the part of a 2004 liberal:

        What about the innocent victims in Egypt, should we go in there? What about the Kurds who were gassed by Saddam Hussein? Should we have done something there? What is our exit strategy? Where is our coalition? Syria is not an imminent threat and Assad was freely elected – so why do you support imperialist aggression against a sovereign country?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 9:02 am

        I never said anything about going in anywhere, I was merely taking exception to your blanket dismissal of these people as cockroaches and your apparent desire to see innocent children massacred.

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 9:10 am

        I have no desire to see innocent children massacred. But I also am an adult and realize that the children’s parents are the ones responsible for that, and there is virtually nothing we can do to stop those adult barbarians. If you haven’t noticed we have tried everything – diplomacy, boots on the ground, nation building, etc.. So a few more missiles really won’t accomplish anything, except quite possibly stirring up the nest again.

        What do you suggest we do?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 10:38 am

        Cluster,

        Frankly, I don’t know what to do and I haven’t been following the issue in great detail at all, too fuckin’ depressing. However, I’m not sure at all that there is simply no solution to be tried for (while understanding that no solution will be perfect). I don’t mean to be coy, but my post really was simply disagreeing with your bloodthirsty assessment of the crisis. I didn’t realize that turning our back and hoping for the complete extermination of an entire region, innocent children included, is the “adult” thing to do. Guess you’re more mature than I am…

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 10:44 am

        Then I am assuming you supported taking out the blood thirsty Saddam Hussein.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 11:17 am

        Are you honestly trying to compare pre-war Iraq, with Saddam in a box and the country crawling with UN weapons inspectors to the ongoing civil war in present day Syria with its bloody massacres of innocents and deployed chemical weapons? That’s intellectually vapid, even for you.

         
    • ricorun

      September 1, 2013 at 8:41 am

      Cluster: In fact, if I was POTUS, I would simply say that we are choosing not to intervene because we just don’t care about them.

      Well, isn’t that pretty much what Obama said when he said he wanted congressional approval for any intervention into the Syrian crisis?

       
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 9:12 am

        Not sure about that, but his insistence on Congressional approval contradicts his previous “red line” position.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 10:15 am

        So, anything you can bitch about, regardless of whether it’s in line with the ideology you prefer, is worth bitching about if you can bring party politics into it — EVEN IF you don’t agree with most of that, is that right? If not, what part of it did I get wrong?

        Just so you know, my ultimate goal is to get you to think for yourself, rather than to rely on ideological talking points. In fact, I hope that’s the goal of EVERYONE here, regardless of their ideological talking points. I believe it was Patrick Moynihan that originally said, “Your entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts”. In other words, no matter what you believe, if you can’t support your opinion by ALL the facts available, then you have a problem. Needless to say, that is often the point where people who are hopelessly invested in their favorite ideology resort to conspiracy theories.

         
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 10:23 am

        I am the one that relies on ideological talking points?? If you haven’t noticed, I am the one that agrees that there are elevated temps, the fact that the climate does change, the fact that fossil fuels are not exactly a clean energy, but has also offered proof that water vapors attribute much more to elevated carbon levels than we do, that 31,000 scientists are skeptical to AGW, that the temps have leveled off over the last decade, and that there have been dramatic climate changes throughout history sans any human involvement. And yet, you are the one still standing in the bleachers with a closed mind towards any argument other than the vaunted “consensus” of the less than objective, and possibly money motivated IPCC.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 12:14 pm

        Cluster: I am the one that relies on ideological talking points??.

        Yes, that is an accurate interpretation of what I said.

        If you haven’t noticed, I am the one that agrees that there are elevated temps, the fact that the climate does change, the fact that fossil fuels are not exactly a clean energy…

        Oh, I’ve very much noticed. I’ve also noticed that you have yet to connect the dots. I suspect that the only reason you can’t is because of your remaining ideological issues.

         
  5. ricorun

    September 1, 2013 at 9:53 am

    For starters, let me reiterate the most important parts of a comment I offered in a previous thread entitled, “A Potpourri of Disappointment” authored by Cluster:

    I have come to view the lack of documentation in articles as pretty good indicator of how ideological they are. Hell, you don’t want facts messing with your opinion when your message can’t stand up to them, right? The worst offenders are those articles that report the findings of a study, of an event, or some other concrete, easily identifiable instance, and they don’t even specifically identify what they’re talking about, let alone provide a link. That frosts me to no end because it indicates intentional deception. The most pathetic are those who either DO provide a link or make it obvious where you can find one, then go ahead and butcher their interpretation of the source — as if no one will notice. And of course, a lot of people DON’T notice, because they don’t bother reading it in the first place or can’t understand it if they did. That saddens me to no end because it indicates that the writer wants to manipulate the ignorance of their readers.

    In support of that observation I offer ALL of the links (so far) offered by EVERYONE on the current thread. You can judge for yourselves the accuracy of my observation. My opinion is that I was very much accurate. And sorry Cluster, and GWB, but even if you apply the legal principle of “reasonable doubt, let alone the scientific principle of 95% probability, it is as it is. And THAT, I would say, is why the scientific community has abandoned the GOP in numbers rivaling the African American community. And that’s unconscionable. And pardon me for saying so, but perhaps it might not be a bad idea to spend a little time in that “ivory tower” you eschew so fociferously. In fact, it seems to me that your major complaint against “ivory tower” types is that they favor theory against real world facts. How curious, given the following…

    Cluster:
    this one

    rusty: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/new_scientist/2013/09/entrepreneurs_or_the_state_innovation_comes_from_public_investment.html

    rusty:
    http://grist.org/climate-energy/current-global-warming-is-just-part-of-a-natural-cycle/

    Cluster:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/2/

    GMB:
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

    GMB:
    http://www.eureferendum.com/results.aspx?keyword=pachuri

    rusty:
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2010/08/03/new_study_clinches_it_the_earth_is_warming_up.html

    rusty:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/the-summer-in-numbers-2013-the-hottest-driest-and-sunniest-since-2006-8792146.html

    rusty:
    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/11/atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_levels_at_all_time_high_for_past_several_million.html

    cluster:
    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/summer-over-cool-weather-dive-south-20130812

    cluster:
    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

     
    • Cluster

      September 1, 2013 at 10:00 am

      Rico, is this suppose to be a refutation of the legitimate skepticism of your almost religious adherence to a consensus? Or just another one of your posts that claims simply – I am right and you are wrong?

       
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 11:34 am

        Cluster: Rico, is this suppose to be a refutation of the legitimate skepticism of your almost religious adherence to a consensus? Or just another one of your posts that claims simply – I am right and you are wrong?

        Do you really think that? If so, then you’re further gone than I thought. Apparently facts and logic make no difference to you. For the record, I have no problem with a “legitimate skepticism of your [meaning me] almost religious adherence adherence to a consensus.” The overarching problem I have is that YOU HAVEN’T PROVIDED A COHERENT, LOGICAL, and/or MEANINGFUL argument to that effect. You need to offer something to suggest that your skepticism is LEGITIMATE on any sort of logical level. To extent that you can’t, THAT’S the basic problem.

        I think that’s fair, don’t you?

         
    • rustybrown2012

      September 1, 2013 at 10:30 am

      Thanks for making that point Rico! Nice to see my well sourced citations contrasted with Cluster’s propaganda and misinterpretations.

       
      • Cluster

        September 1, 2013 at 10:36 am

        ROTFLOL. Rusty you just said when you can’t refute the facts, blame the source. But now your saying that the FACT that water vapors contribute much, much more to elevated carbon levels than human activity is a misrepresentation? The FACT that 31,000 scientists are skeptical of AGW is “propaganda”, and that providing the “funds” for innovation is equal to that of actually, well you know, innovating. And you accuse me of misrepresentation??

        You’re a comedy of errors my friend. Maybe too much scotch.

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 11:47 am

        OMG! Cluster just said this: “Rusty you just said when you can’t refute the facts, blame the source.”

        Oh man, this ought be entertaining!

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 2:55 pm

        You’re welcome rusty. But as you may already appreciate, it’s not about you, or about Cluster, or about me. It’s bigger than that. What I said REALLY DOES serve as a useful discriminator between sources that really are interested in getting things right on the one hand (i.e., those that go out of their way to document all the sources they think are germane) and those that are just trying to make an ideological point. In this particular case it’s pretty obvious that “getting things right” sides with you rather than Cluster, and does so to an embarrassing degree.

        But that said, I hope you don’t assume the same will be true on all issues. Likewise, I fully expect to get my ass kicked on certain issues, because I”m not entirely consistent and/or well informed on everything, either. However, I’m pretty sure that if and when I get bested in a logical argument I’ll say something to the effect of, “you know, you might have a point; let me digest the information you provided and get back to you”, rather than something to the effect of “we’ll just have to agree to disagree:” To me, the latter is rarely more than a terrible cop-out.primarily designed to preserve one’s level of ignorance and/or ideology..

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm

        Rico,

        Agree with you 100%. When the time comes I’m bested in a logical argument we’ll see what my response will be. Hasn’t happened yet, as I’m not fond of making claims for things I know nothing about and am very comfortable with saying “I don’t know” in response to a question, as I did a few hours ago on this thread when Cluster asked what I would do about Syria.

        I do think however, that the bromide “agree to disagree” can be useful at times when opinions have been exhausted and ideologies are at loggerheads and one wishes to extricate oneself from an argument with an obstinate person. I’m not under the assumption that all of the debates on this blog should reach full fruition with a clear winner and loser; on the contrary, I think most, if not all will leave it’s participants more grounded than ever in their own prejudices.

         
  6. mitchethekid

    September 1, 2013 at 11:02 am

     
  7. Cluster

    September 1, 2013 at 5:51 pm

    Hey remember the whole “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it?”. I am thinking we should have read it:

    http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/aug/29/obamacare-turns-a-liberal-to-the-right/

    I apologize for not being more closed minded like two others on the thread who will remain anonymous. So allow me to back track real quick on this and simply say; Obamacare is good and affordable. I will also try and be more compliant with the wishes of the IPCC and say that the world will end soon if we don’t redistribute carbon wealth. I know the NSA is listening so I feel good to get that off my chest.

    Resume normal programming.

    115 shopping days until Christmas! (Excuse me – I meant to say winter festival)

     
    • ricorun

      September 1, 2013 at 6:58 pm

      Cluster: I apologize for not being more closed minded like two others on the thread who will remain anonymous.

      I think I’ve identified one: GWB. Who’s the other? Actually, if you didn’t make the accusation I’d have thought you were talking about you first and foremost. Go figure, I guess. 😉

       
  8. rustybrown2012

    September 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm

    Cluster,

    Your first link:

    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/summer-over-cool-weather-dive-south-20130812

    …unfortunately confuses CLIMATE with WEATHER, something you denialists have been doing for some time. You’re article talks about a regional (parts of the U.S.) cool event, NOT global temps, which is what we’re discussing. Remember the halcyon denial days at b4v when you guys were trumpeting east coast cold snaps as evidence against global warming? That wasn’t too long ago. What dinosaurs you are, but you don’t change your stripes – sorry for the mixed metaphor.

    Concerning your second link:

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

    This is a shameless AGW denialist site which is a great example of how people try to distort the findings of actual science by bombarding the casual reader with scientific facts and jargon which don’t actually refute the scientific findings they’re going after but rather muddy the waters and overload the senses with data that is not pertinent to the discussion. Water vapors? What climatologist has dismissed water vapors as a greenhouse gas? Do you actually think this has escaped their detection? ALL respected climatologists take water vapors, as well as naturally occurring co2 and other natural greenhouse gases into account in their calculations. The problem, just to remind you, is with the enormous amount of measurable, man-made co2 that we’re pumping into the atmosphere, which is why we’re experiencing AGW.

    I don’t know how many links I can paste into a post so I’ll destroy your last one in my next…

     
    • rustybrown2012

      September 1, 2013 at 7:46 pm

      Now on to your third and final link – this one is the best! Did you even read this, Cluster? It exposes what bullshit it is to claim “31,000 scientists, blah, blah…” Here, quoted FROM YOUR LINK:

      “The petition form itself lends a clue as to the nature of the petition. Judging by the form below, one notes that one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields. Since the results are not verifiable, there is no way to know how many signers have actually earned their degree. Therefore, the integrity of the petition is at the very least, questionable.

      Do ‘31,000 scientists say global warming is not real’? Maybe. but how important a number is that? They are not talking about only climate scientists. You could have a PhD in anthropology or religion, but what expertise does one have in climatology? That is the more important question.”

      And your article then concludes (with a point I made in a previous post):

      “97% of working climate scientists say the temperature is rising, and human activity is a significant contributing factor.”

      Cluster: are you even trying to engage in an intelligent debate here?

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 8:07 pm

        Hey, whatever else you may say about me, you certainly can’t say I don’t give your opinion and sources full measure…

         
    • Cluster

      September 1, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      LOL. The scotch is getting to you champ. Shameless denialist? What was that you said about attacking the source earlier today?

      I am having fun watching this.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 8:15 pm

        The scotch is always getting to me pal, doesn’t mean I can’t run rings around you. Are you seriously denying that that site is NOT a AGW denialist site? That is obviously it’s entire purpose, as a few clicks will reveal. And again, about sources, just because it’s a AGW denialist site doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it just means I’m pointing out the obvious. I see you haven’t addressed my specific criticisms of the CONTENT of that site…

         
      • mitchethekid

        September 2, 2013 at 2:37 am

        I’m a Johnnie Walker Red man myself. As their mid ’60’s ad said “When you’ve really arrived, you don’t have to shout about it”. Ah, the power of advertizing.

         
    • ricorun

      September 1, 2013 at 8:11 pm

      rusty: Water vapors? What climatologist has dismissed water vapors as a greenhouse gas? Do you actually think this has escaped their detection? ALL respected climatologists take water vapors, as well as naturally occurring co2 and other natural greenhouse gases into account in their calculations. The problem, just to remind you, is with the enormous amount of measurable, man-made co2 that we’re pumping into the atmosphere, which is why we’re experiencing AGW.

      I don’t know how many links I can paste into a post so I’ll destroy your last one in my next…

      You might want to save your breath, rusty. I just asked Cluster to compare the links he and other denialists offered on this thread with the links that the non-denialists offered to see which ones offered links to verify the points they are talking about. I guess you know how that went… Yes, sadly, Cluster responded with this: Rico, is this suppose to be a refutation of the legitimate skepticism of your almost religious adherence to a consensus? Honest, that’s what he said. And I”m pretty sure I quoted him exactly, and put everything in context. That’s really what he said. Pretty sad, huh? I thought he was one of the more enlightened luddites. Apparently I was wrong.

      He also suggested that we should “agree to disagree”. How do you feel about that? Personally, I think it’s appropriate to remind him, once again, that though he has a right to his own opinion, he doesn’t have a right to his own facts.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm

        Rico,

        Guess you missed my post above about that; here it is again:

        “Rico,

        Agree with you 100%. When the time comes I’m bested in a logical argument we’ll see what my response will be. Hasn’t happened yet, as I’m not fond of making claims for things I know nothing about and am very comfortable with saying “I don’t know” in response to a question, as I did a few hours ago on this thread when Cluster asked what I would do about Syria.

        I do think however, that the bromide “agree to disagree” can be useful at times when opinions have been exhausted and ideologies are at loggerheads and one wishes to extricate oneself from an argument with an obstinate person. I’m not under the assumption that all of the debates on this blog should reach full fruition with a clear winner and loser; on the contrary, I think most, if not all will leave it’s participants more grounded than ever in their own prejudices.”

        …you’re right of course, “agree to disagree” is a cop-out, but a needed one when tempers are thin and the scotch is low. I’m not suggesting that is the case now; Cluster is clearly on the ropes and we should go in for the kill!

         
      • ricorun

        September 1, 2013 at 8:50 pm

        rusty: I’m not suggesting that is the case now; Cluster is clearly on the ropes and we should go in for the kill!

        Once you bag ‘im can I skin ‘im? I can skin and butcher just about anything. I just might be better than Jeremiah in that regard, I just hope he’s good eatin’. If not, he’s probably not worth the effort. 🙂

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 8:55 pm

        Rico,

        Well, my guess is he’s pretty tough. Might be good for some jerky, organ meat, head cheese, etc.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 1, 2013 at 9:32 pm

        Oh dear, I hope our intemperate jokes haven’t discouraged Cluster from addressing our substantive criticisms of his criticisms of AGW.

         
      • Cluster

        September 2, 2013 at 6:21 am

        Those were intemperate jokes? Wow, you need to improve your sense of humor. I just hope that you and Rico are around when the AGW scare implodes much like the global cooling scare imploded in the late 1970’s, which will probably only be another year, two at the most. Can you make me that promise? You and Rico are the modern day equivalent of the insane guy standing on the corner with a sign reading – “the end of the world is near”

        Here’s some more information for you from some shameless denialists:

        http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535

         
      • Cluster

        September 2, 2013 at 6:41 am

        More “revisions” made to AGW models from the denialists:

        http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/08/30/blogs/dotipccstorm.html

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 2, 2013 at 8:21 am

        Cluster.

        The Norwegian study would be good news indeed if it turns out to be true once it’s published and verified. I don’t really understand your purpose of posting the study since it agrees with everything I’ve been saying about climate change; are you under the impression that I don’t want to avoid a climate crises? Am I to assume you now believe in AGW as these Norwegian researchers do?

         
      • ricorun

        September 3, 2013 at 2:44 pm

        Cluster: I just hope that you and Rico are around when the AGW scare implodes much like the global cooling scare imploded in the late 1970′s, which will probably only be another year, two at the most.

        First, your “global cooling scare” canard is about as farcical as your “everyone thought the Earth was flat” canard. Be that as it may, what would be required for you to decide the “AGW scare” has imploded? Would it be enough for you to claim that if the annual global surface temp in 2014 or 2015 was 0.02 deg. C below that of 2012? Would it require 50% or more of the scientists constituting the 97% consensus to come out publicly and announce that they changed their mind? Would it be enough if Senator Inhofe simply said it was so? What, exactly, would make you decide the “AGW scare” has imploded?

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 3:13 pm

        When revisions like the following continue:

        http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2013/08/30/blogs/dotipccstorm.html

        And admissions like the following become more frequent:

        “We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”

        This will happen within the next year or two. Mark my words. I hope this passes your “legitimacy” test that you responded to me with the other day.

        I also wanted to mention that I find it highly amusing that such strong advocates for evolution that you and Rusty are, you both somehow believe that the world started in 1880 in terms of climate. Strange isn’t it?

         
      • bardolf2

        September 3, 2013 at 3:22 pm

        Rico gets extra credit for simply asking for a criteria by which Cluster himself will decide if AGW has imploded. Cluster has put himself too far out with the global cooling claim which seemed to be more Time magazine than agreed upon science. Still, Cluster’s main point it the human contribution to climate change.

        Michael Chricton had a well thought out comparison between global warming and SETI – the search for extraterrestrial intelligence at the following link

        https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html

        IF I had to put up a criteria for showing AGW had imploded it wouldn’t necessarily involve the majority of the science community coming out and saying blah. In fact, using the Chricton analogy, long past it’s expiration date the belief in Drake’s equation (which tells how many ET’s there are in the universe) is still in high schools and colleges and even has a teaching module at NASA http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/2page18.pdf

        So although astrophysicists in person will tell you to ignore Drake’s equation, they still use it as a conversation starter. Side note, I unfortunately know about Drake’s equation because some students asked for help with “using probability correctly” where there was none.

        My opinion is when Drake was ridiculed by xkcd, then it had imploded.

        http://xkcd.com/384/

        In summary, if a scientific humor site like xkcd makes fun of AGW it will have imploded.

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 3:30 pm

        Actually, I am just going by what reasoned voices are saying on the issue. Japanese and Norweigian scientists are saying that the warming phenomena has abated, temps are leveling off, and that the warming may be attributed more to a decade long, natural trend.

        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. My apologies to the self appointed “knower of all things” Rico

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 4:21 pm

        Cluster,

        Actually, your “reasoned voices” agree with me that AGW is a real phenomena and should be dealt with. Don’t you read your own links? They DISAGREE with your denial.

        As for their predictions on cooling, their results are preliminary – unpublished, unreviewed and not duplicated by anyone. Why is your AGW denial agenda so strong that you grasp at unpublished research and deem it far more important and convincing than the research of 97% of the world’s climatologists who base their convictions on cross-tested, peer-reviewed science? That doesn’t make sense to me. You are clearly the one with an agenda and a closed mind here. I’m just following the best available evidence. Why are you so committed to your agenda?

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 4:27 pm

        Rusty, you need to follow the bouncing ball a little closer. I have never denied warming nor climate change (because that occurs all the time). I do reject the IPCC conclusion however of the level of human involvement, the need to redistribute wealth from developing nation to non developing nation, and the purchase of carbon credits to resolve the problem.

        I believe it to be much more of a natural occurrence that will become evident within two years.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 4:42 pm

        Cluster,

        I think you need to read a little more carefully; I never said you deny warming or climate change. I said you deny AGW. Please tell me I don’t have to tell you what AGW means at this late point in our debate. And it’s not only the IPCC’s conclusion, it’s the conclusion of practically every respected scientist in the field on this planet. The possible solutions you mention can be debated but only when denialists like yourself admit the problem so we can start from the point of reality.

        I’ll ask again, why do you have such a strong agenda against the concept of AGW?

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 4:57 pm

        It doesn’t take a rocket scientist (again my apologies to Rico) to see that recent trend lines are beginning to refute previous AGW claims and I am not the only one observing that, as evidenced by my many links.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 5:18 pm

        You’re ducking the question. You cited two unpublished, unverified sources to support cooling. Two. Unverified. Unpublished. That’s two against thousands who have published peer-reviewed research. Why do you find the two more compelling than the thousands?

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 5:32 pm

        I am not ducking the question, I answered you specifically, and the answer to why I find it more compelling than the “thousands”, is because I don’t follow the sheep and I remember quite well the late 70’s and global cooling. To a smaller degree, anything Al Gore is heavily invested in, can’t be a good thing. Follow the money.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 5:31 pm

        Oh, forgot to mention this jem:

        I find it highly amusing that such strong advocates for evolution that you and Rusty are, you both somehow believe that the world started in 1880 in terms of climate. Strange isn’t it?

        Cluster is king of the straw man, isn’t he? His statement is so unbelievably stupid it beggars comment.

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 5:40 pm

        Beggars comment? Sheesh. That’s as bad as “methinks”

        Just for the record, there is quite a bit of observational date prior to 1850 that suggests the climate has been warmer and no human carbon output was a factor. Just saying.

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 5:40 pm

        And it’s “gem”, not “jem”

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 5:55 pm

        “Beggars comment” is grammatically correct. Methinks it’s petty and mundane to criticize someone for using colorful language. Gem – my bad.

        “Just for the record, there is quite a bit of observational date prior to 1850 that suggests the climate has been warmer and no human carbon output was a factor. Just saying.

        No shit. I have never claimed otherwise and your observation has no bearing on my arguments. What’s your point?

         
      • mitchethekid

        September 4, 2013 at 9:48 am

        I thought it was Beggars Banquet

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 5:57 pm

        And it’s “data”, not “date”.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 6:14 pm

        ” I don’t follow the sheep and I remember quite well the late 70′s and global cooling.

        So now giving credence to the opinions of 97% of the world’s scientists in a given field is “following sheep”. Again, I actually don’t have a rebuttal to a statement that is so clearly asinine, anyone else care to try?

        Further, I don’t think you’re remembering the 70’s as accurately as you think you are:

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 6:53 pm

        So now that I’ve dispelled the myth that the majority of scientists were hysterical about global cooling in the 70’s your reasons remain: “I don’t listen to scientists” and “I don’t like Al Gore”. My, those are some pretty lame-ass reasons to deny AGW. Just sayin’.

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 8:06 pm

        You just don’t know when to quit do you Rusty? You’re like a little ankle biter. You know it is ok to be a dissenter and I think I am pretty good company:

        http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/1000_scientists_dissent.pdf

         
      • Cluster

        September 3, 2013 at 8:08 pm

        Oh and your Dudley Do Right complex is hilarious.

        “Here I am to save the day” – dispelling myths, leaping tall buildings, destroying arguments – you are the caped AGW warrior! Fight on brother.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 3, 2013 at 11:05 pm

        Well Cluster, I’m fine with wrapping it up here, you must be getting a tad embarrassed at this point. I’ve presented more than enough evidence to give any reasonably person pause (or at least attempt to debate me!) but you remain ensconced with your own propaganda, which comprises almost the entirety of the evidence you’ve offered on this thread. Your latest link doesn’t break your streak. The “pretty good company” you keep are right wing, republican oil industry shills who get paid handsomely for stringing rubes like you along:

        http://www.desmogblog.com/marc-morano

        http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/another-red-herring-survey/

        …talk about hilarious!

         
      • Cluster

        September 4, 2013 at 5:01 am

        The “pretty good company” you keep are right wing, republican oil industry shills who get paid handsomely for stringing rubes like you along:

        ROTFL. Are you sure you’re not a comedian?

         
      • Cluster

        September 4, 2013 at 5:13 am

        I guess really the truly sad thing here Rusty, although I find you to be more humorous than anything, is that despite the overwhelming amount of information that I have given you which is more than enough to give even the dumbest amongst us enough reason to be skeptical, you have cinched up your cloak of denial and are plowing head first into a belief system that says only redistribution of wealth can resolve a climate issue. Think about that for a minute. Redistributing money is the answer to a climate problem.

        And those are the people you put your faith in. If it would help, you can send me some money and I promise to walk more often. It might make you feel better.

         
      • Cluster

        September 4, 2013 at 5:16 am

        It is nauseating when dissenting opinions are heard, isn’t it comrade?

         
      • ricorun

        September 4, 2013 at 6:38 am

        Cluster: And admissions like the following become more frequent…:

        Why is it that you, and people like you, are so quick to extol the findings of a single paper? In fact, it is even more precise to say you extol popular press (or blog) reports of the findings of a single paper — and you often pick popular press reports (or blogs) that don’t even provide a link to the paper, sometimes not even mentioning who the authors are (e.g., your example), let alone provide any accurate context for what they say about it.

        So let me add some context to this, your latest revelation…

        First, look carefully at the quote you provided (I’ve bolded the part of particular importance) ““We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”

        Now, what do you suppose they were talking about when they said “long-term warming”? It’s your quote, so maybe you could tell me what it means (and where the quote came from, while you’re at it).

        Screw it, I’ll explain it to you. See, ever since they started plopping those ARGO sensors in the ocean the detail of what we know about them (and deep oceans in particular) has skyrocketed. One disturbing early finding was how much heat was being stored in the deep oceans. It was disturbing because all of a sudden the climate looked to many scientists like it could be considerably more sensitive than previously thought (which, by the way, and whether you realized it or not, is the exact opposite of what you’re arguing here). Since then it’s become more and more obvious that there are longer term ocean oscillations that move heat around vertically, i.e., from deep to surface and back. Quite a few recent papers have suggested that one such oscillation of particular importance is the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation, or IPO. It has a period of about 25-35 years with a positive phase and a negative phase. In the positive phase less cold deep ocean waters rise to the surface, EL Ninos are more common than La Ninas, and the overall effect on global surface temperatures is positive. In the negative phase more cold deep ocean waters rise to the surface, La Ninas are more common than El Ninos, and the overall effect on global surface temperatures is negative. Thus, if there was no long term positive forcing provided by GHGs, you’d get a decade or more of warmer temperatures followed by a decade or more of cooler temperatures, back and forth. But with the long term positive forcing provided by GHGs you get a decade or more of rapidly climbing temperatures followed by a decade or more of slowly climbing, stable, or slightly falling temperatures depending upon the slope of the GHG forcing.

        Hopefully now you better understand the context of the quote you provided. If you do then perhaps you could go a step further and extrapolate for us what’s likely to happen when the IPO switches back to its positive phase. And if you can do that then perhaps you understand why I’m quite confident that the “AGW scare” will not implode. Well, it might in your own mind, but not in the mind of most others.

        I also wanted to mention that I find it highly amusing that such strong advocates for evolution that you and Rusty are, you both somehow believe that the world started in 1880 in terms of climate. Strange isn’t it?

        If you may recall, my comment about the instrumental record was in response to your comment about the instrumental record. The only thing magical about 1880 (or so) is that’s when they started getting serious about precisely measuring temperature (and relative humidity, by the way — which touches on your comical “water vapor hypothesis”), over a good portion of the world. Since that time scientists have gotten increasingly better at measuring all sorts of phenomena that have to do with climate. They’ve even gotten increasingly better at determining the contributions of many of those phenomena in the previous hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years ago. Of course, the further you go back the less precision is possible. Even with respect to the here and now not everything is known about climate. You seem to think that scientists have to be absolutely sure of everything in order to be sure of anything. And that’s just, well, stupid. You bring up something about how the IPCC conclusions have fluctuated over the years, as if that’s an indication that they’re just blowing smoke out of their ass. Maybe they are, but that’s not an indication of it. That’s just how science works. Cyclonic activity appears to be an issue that is particularly difficult to figure out. But just because it is doesn’t mean that the consensus is any less valid. And once again the consensus is this: the earth is getting warmer and humans are primarily responsible. Exactly how those facts manifest themselves in weather events is a separate question. It’s an important question, but it’s a separate one.

        So climate changed in the past without any human contribution you say? Duh. After all, humans haven’t been around since Day 6 you know, they’re a very recent arrival in the geologic scheme of things. So what DID cause those climate events? Any clue? Do you think all climate events have the same cause? Regardless of how you answer those questions personally, a more important question is this: do you think the causes can be known if enough evidence is available? If your answer is no, then there’s no point in discussing anything with you. If your answer is yes, then what evidence do you feel is missing, particularly with respect to the present climate event? When you say, “it’s just natural variation”, it sounds like you’re saying that the causes of those natural variations can’t be understood — and/or that they cannot be combined with anthropogenic causes for a full understanding of what’s going on.

        So, humans did not contribute to past climate events. No shit Sherlock. But by that do you mean humans are off the hook forever, no matter how many billions of us little suckers there are on Earth? Some species of whales went extinct without human contribution, too. Does that mean we don’t have to worry about over-fishing whales? Or anything else for that matter?

         
      • Cluster

        September 4, 2013 at 6:52 am

        You know Rico, if you and Rusty are so adverse to dissenting opinion, this may not be a good blog for you to frequent. For that matter, this may not be a good country for you to live in. There are countries where people do conform to group think, you may want to look into it.

        So, humans did not contribute to past climate events. No shit Sherlock. But by that do you mean humans are off the hook forever, no matter how many billions of us little suckers there are on Earth? Some species of whales went extinct without human contribution, too. Does that mean we don’t have to worry about over-fishing whales? Or anything else for that matter?

        And there is no need to get upset. Interesting though that you would refer to the human race as “suckers”. It suggests a disdain for our existence. And I have said countless times that we need to transition to a cleaner energy platform, so this rant of yours is unfounded, but definitely a glimpse into your psyche. No matter how disturbing that may be.

         
      • Cluster

        September 4, 2013 at 7:34 am

        And Rico, while your “IPO” information is interesting, it still doesn’t do one thing to prove that the IPCC conclusion that redistribution of wealth will resolve the problem, nor does it prove that increased human carbon emission is the primary accelerant, nor does it prove that warming will continue or that the current level of temps are particularly harmful. It was an interesting read though on how the earth has an amazing ability to regulate itself. So thanks for that.

         
      • ricorun

        September 4, 2013 at 7:54 am

        Cluster: You know it is ok to be a dissenter and I think I am pretty good company…

        I’m not sure I’d describe Marc Morano as “good company”. And really, 1000 scientists worldwide? According to the National Science Foundation, there are over 10 million scientists and engineers in the US alone. 1000 represents 0.0001% of them. Anyway, <a href="http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2010/12/13/another-red-herring-survey/&quot;here’s another take on Morano’s latest “report”.

         
      • ricorun

        September 4, 2013 at 8:40 am

        First, I wish to apologize to rusty for repeating his link. Anyway, on with the party!

        Cluster: And there is no need to get upset. Interesting though that you would refer to the human race as “suckers”. It suggests a disdain for our existence.

        Nah, I’m just skeptical about the theory of gravity. I believe the Earth sucks and we suck back. Why do we suck more than, say, balloons? It’s natural variation, of course!

        Cluster: You know Rico, if you and Rusty are so adverse to dissenting opinion, this may not be a good blog for you to frequent.

        Like I said before, I have no problem with dissent per se, so long as it’s reasonable. The overarching problem I have is that I can’t detect A COHERENT, LOGICAL, and/or MEANINGFUL argument in your dissent. Every time I ask questions that probe how thoughtful your dissent is you ignore them, and instead continue with a scattershot of absurdities which, oftentimes, don’t even bear up to a careful read of the articles you, yourself post. That’s not dissent, that’s just sad. As much as you may hate it, there’s a difference between reasoned opinions and unreasonable ones.

        I have said countless times that we need to transition to a cleaner energy platform, so this rant of yours is unfounded

        Since “my rant” was all about the boatload of other things you said (however unreasonable), I think it’s pretty well founded. But if you want to limit the conversation to the transition to a cleaner energy platform (or at least emphasize that), I’m all for it. So I guess the first question is, what do you mean by the distinction between “redistributing wealth” and “redistributing money”? It sounds like you’re denying that transactions often have externalities. Or are you saying that society has no right to do anything about them? Or are you saying society should only deal with externalities you recognize? Is one of those correct, or did you mean something else? Or are you going to ignore that question, too?

         
      • Cluster

        September 4, 2013 at 8:46 am

        Consider yourself ignored on all future ramblings pertaining to this issue. I have put forth a plethora of valid material which would lead anyone to be skeptical of the IPCC conclusions. The fact that you disagree, means nothing. Nada. Zip. Nine.

        Your obsession over this issue, and your weird desire to have conformity is more than a little strange however, so I just wanted to point that out. Have a great week.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 4, 2013 at 9:47 am

        There’s just nothing more to be said. Cluster’s standards of evidence are simply pathetic; the dubious sources supporting his argument have been exposed by myself and others, and he has offered no further defense of them. By direct inverse contrast, the sources supporting my argument link to the most prestigious scientific institutions in the world, and he has no rebuttal to them. By his own admission his denial is based on ignorance (believing in the best scientific evidence and opinions available = being sheep) and ideology (I hate Al Gore = AGW is not real).

        Cluster’s attempts to muddy the waters with talk of wealth redistribution is a diversionary tactic. AGW, as a phenomena, has nothing to do with wealth distribution or any proposed response. We’re trying to debate the PROBLEM here, not the SOLUTION. Although, in his defense, he’s probably too dim to be aware of this and really does think wealth redistribution is intractably tied to AGW.

        Trying to get reason into Cluster is like trying to throw tomatoes through a brick wall. I am glad he finds amusement in my posts though, if he’s incapable of rational thinking and discourse at least he can giggle over all the funny words on his computer, much like a child titters at a serious thing he doesn’t understand.

         
      • ricorun

        September 4, 2013 at 9:51 am

        Cluster: Consider yourself ignored on all future ramblings pertaining to this issue.

        Which issue would that be — global warming or the transition to a cleaner energy platform?
        Take your ball and go home, is that it? What a guy.

         
    • ricorun

      September 4, 2013 at 12:21 pm

      Rusty: We’re trying to debate the PROBLEM here, not the SOLUTION. Although, in his defense, he’s probably too dim to be aware of this and really does think wealth redistribution is intractably tied to AGW.

      While it’s true that we’ve mostly been “debating” the problem, I am not averse to switching gears and debating the solution. I follow those a lot more than I do climate science. But I suspect Cluster will continue to be evasive about his use of terms (e.g., “wealth redistribution” vs. “money redistribution” – seriously, WTF does that mean??), along with access to whatever “facts” he’s inclined to present. I also suspect he has a beef with something to do with whether, how, and to what extent the government (at whatever level) should get involved in influencing energy development. But I’m also quite sure he hasn’t thought the issues, or the connection between them, through to any extent deeper than surfing ripples on a pond.

      After all, he’s already indicated that too much thinking leads to paralysis by analysis. And as you indicated, he’s already set a pretty low bar for himself. Apparently he really believes that opinions themselves are what count, not the strength of the facts behind them.

       
      • rustybrown2012

        September 4, 2013 at 1:11 pm

        Rico,

        Well, it is a bit hard to discuss solutions to a problem that one party doesn’t even acknowledge exists. That party would then feel justified in labeling any action too extreme because, after all, they don’t feel there is a problem to address in the first place. So I think there’s merit in just getting the mouth-breathers to admit to the problem in the first place. Fat chance, though.

        Having said that, you could, for the sake of argument, take a theoretical approach whereby both parties agree IN THEORY that if AGW is real, what do we do about it? I actually only have a passing knowledge of some of the proposals, but I think that some of my reservations may surprise Cluster. For example, I can’t recall all the details but I remember way back when the US pulled out of the Kyoto agreement I was sympathetic to the arguments that the protocols were unfairly hamstringing US interests and industries; my reservations were firmly against the leftist groupthink of the time. I am certainly not in favor of a panicked Chicken Little approach and believe sacrifice should be shared by all nations, developed or otherwise.

         
      • ricorun

        September 4, 2013 at 2:17 pm

        rusty: Well, it is a bit hard to discuss solutions to a problem that one party doesn’t even acknowledge exists. That party would then feel justified in labeling any action too extreme because, after all, they don’t feel there is a problem to address in the first place. So I think there’s merit in just getting the mouth-breathers to admit to the problem in the first place. Fat chance, though.

        To be fair to Cluster, he did say that “fossil fuels are not exactly a clean energy”. But I think he has yet to face up to what that acknowledgement implies. And therein lies the rub. If he thinks the government should stay out of cleaning up the mess, then who does he think should step in? What actions does he think should be taken? And on what level? I could be wrong, but it sounds to me like he’s boxed himself into a corner — a corner that he can’t get out of short of sacrificing some element of his ideology or another. Stringent ideologies have a tendency to do that. On the other hand, on at least one other issue (health care) he’s indicated that government involvement is preferable to private involvement alone. So I’m very curious as to what his thinking is. And I have to say again… he has NOT SHOWN ANY INDICATION THAT HE UNDERSTANDS THE CONCEPT OF EXTERNALITIES, no matter how rudimentary, and even though it’s a fundamental economic concept (not to mention being a great help to him getting out of the corner he’s in). I’ve asked him several times now, but he hasn’t answered. On that score he’s been totally consistent. I find that very sad.

        He wants a debate, but apparently only if it occurs on his terms — surfing ripples on a pond. Very sad.

         
      • Cluster

        September 5, 2013 at 9:54 am

        ….but it sounds to me like he’s boxed himself into a corner

        I am the one boxed in a corner???? I am the only one acknowledging different opinions on the issue rather than a religious adherence to only those conclusions sanctioned by the “consensus” as you are.

        For Christ’s sake Rico, for someone as “educated” as you are, you really are thick headed.

         
      • ricorun

        September 5, 2013 at 5:35 pm

        Cluster on September 4, 2013 at 8:46 am : Consider yourself ignored on all future ramblings pertaining to this issue.

        Cluster on September 5, 2013 at 9:54 am : For Christ’s sake Rico, for someone as “educated” as you are, you really are thick headed.

        Well, that didn’t last long!

        Cluster also added this: ” I am the only one acknowledging different opinions on the issue rather than a religious adherence to only those conclusions sanctioned by the “consensus” as you are.”

        Well Cluster, as I’ve indicated, opinions without facts and the logic necessary to tie them all together, aren’t worth much. In fact, they smack of cheap ideology and/or cheap religion. Unfortunately, that is the place where you’re at. You can do better, I know you can. Capability is not the problem, the problem is with your effort.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 5, 2013 at 7:47 pm

        Cluster,

        FYI, sometimes “acknowledging different opinions on (an) issue” is not a good thing. See: flat earthers. Yet another one of your logical errors…

         
      • Cluster

        September 5, 2013 at 7:52 pm

        Actually flat earth was the early “consensus” of the day. It was the round earth thinking that was the different opinion and Galileo was jailed for voicing it.

        LOL. Doh!

         
      • bardolf2

        September 5, 2013 at 8:41 pm

        Clueless

        The ancients knew the earth was round, they could see the earth’s shadow on the moon during an eclipse. Also, Galileo had a controversy about the earth going around the sun, not the earth being flat. And he was never jailed.

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 5, 2013 at 8:42 pm

        I was talking about present day, clueless…

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 5, 2013 at 8:43 pm

        …not to mention what dolf added. Cluster, you just can’t get anything right on this thread, can you?

         
      • rustybrown2012

        September 5, 2013 at 8:50 pm

        Here’s some more compelling evidence of a different opinion for Cluster to have an open mind about:

        http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

         
    • bardolf2

      September 2, 2013 at 7:52 pm

      Organized Labor in the US made so many mistakes in the past thinking only locally and selfishly.

      Labor Day is just one example.

      The rest of the world celebrates on May 1st, May Day in celebration of an American event. May International Workers’ Day is the commemoration of the 1886 Haymarket affair in Chicago. Now the principle problem that unions face is that their jobs can be exported overseas to non union countries.

      Health care as a union benefit is another example.

      Instead of doing like the Canadian unions and trying to get health care for everyone, the unions got health care, mainly for themselves alone. Now every time a Twinkie corporation goes under from bad management decisions or market forces we have to hear about the unions and there big health benefits.

       
  9. mitchethekid

    September 2, 2013 at 11:42 am

    As far as Syria, it’s not the sectarian violence or the government vs the rebels that results in killing, it’s the method.

     
  10. casper

    September 5, 2013 at 6:13 pm

    While I haven’t posted on this thread, I have very much enjoyed it. Lots to think about.

     
 
%d bloggers like this: