Global Warming: "Pseudoscientific Fraud"

[Jeff Lebowski]

The collective wisdom of human beings in a free country ought to count for something. Just an observation.

The poll numbers for acceptance of evolution and climate change are very similar in America (both in number and demographic). Ponder that for a moment.

BTW, it tickles me to see you in the anti-science crowd in this case.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Maybe you can post for the 20th time that we're conflating what the politicians are saying with the actual science. You sure love beating the hell out that strawman. Meanwhile when all we hear about concerning global warming is what the politicians say and in hindsight it ends up being pure horseshit, then you can post how those questioning what they've heard as being anti-science and the equivalent of believers in Bigfoot. BTW, 60% of the country doesn't believe that global warming is a big deal according to Pew. I'm sure a majority of the public still believes in global warming but Al Gore and little Frenchmen looking for plentiful blowjobs (both literal and figurative) on the DC cocktail party circuit are doing their darndest to diminish that majority.

I don't think you guys quite understand what's happening here. The Boy Who Cried Wolf fable still caries the same moral and once you're wrong so many times people stop listening. If the scientists are worried about people not paying attention to them, they should pull their mouthpieces aside and tell them to cut the bullshit. Of course, cutting the bullshit potentially means less funding.

Aside from all that, your point about the science and practical and policy considerations being completely separate is kind of pointless. Why the hell is this or anything studied, just for shits and giggles? Global warming isn't a new concept and if the science is as buttoned up as the scientists say, then it seems like it would then be coupled with policy recommendations other than "we have to stop relying on fossil fuels." Really? Why aren't the coal plants in earnest being replaced with natural gas plants? Why hasn't a nuclear plant been built for 20 years? Why are the Bay Area loons trying to put a halt to hydroelectric power? Instead they engage in wind power and solar nonsense because that's the only thing the environmental loons can agree upon (until they get pissed at the number of raptors being killed by solar farms). Solar and wind will never be an answer to our energy needs and if they really cared to countenance that bit of science, then maybe we could move onto coming to a compromise and a workable solution (a massive ramping up of nuclear power).

But the anti-nuclear people of the 70s and 80s are part of the global warming crowd. As we've seen in California and the desire by some on the coast to get rid of the hydroelectric power (it's totally clean, but it kills fish) and laying of waste to massive swaths of farmland, these people aren't interested in a compromise or workable solution. They don't like natural gas so we're left with more coal plants. They don't like nuclear plants so we're left with more coal plants. Then they ignore that solar and wind simply isn't feasible nationwide. How would the Eastern seaboard function six months out of the year on wind and solar? It's ridiculous. Who's being unreasonable here? Those making wrong predictions and making vague demands and offering no real solution, or those that wonder about why the predictions are wrong and the implications that would result from the vague demands (not to mention the motivations behind them).

[ERCougar]

More ugh's. I don't even know where to start with the idiocy going on in this thread. It's truly remarkable how effective Fox News has become. Keep up the good fight, JL.

[creekster]

More ugh's. I don't even know where to start with the idiocy going on in this thread. It's truly remarkable how effective Fox News has become. Keep up the good fight, JL.

I'm guessing you're a nice guy in person. But your arrogance here is insufferable. I don't even know where to start with the idiocy of your arrogance.

[ERCougar]

The collective wisdom of human beings in a free country ought to count for something. Just an observation.

This is a good place to start. No need for science! This week's poll in US Weekly sez: ...

Do I have permission to use this line? A lot?

I'm guessing you're a nice guy in person. But your arrogance here is insufferable. I don't even know where to start with the idiocy of your arrogance.

lol.
Arrogance? I pointed out that Higgs-Boson particle isn't particularly practical scientific research (a point you echoed) and now I don't know how else to sum up another 60 responses making the same ridiculous mistakes of silly anecdotal evidence, amplifying noise in long term trends, and pointing out that climate scientists can't predict the weather tomorrow. Idiocy. That's all it is. It's depressing that FNC can stupefy so many otherwise very smart people. I expect this stuff from BYU rejects. Not here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm guessing you're a nice guy in person. But your arrogance here is insufferable. I don't even know where to start with the idiocy of your arrogance.

Your arrogance filter seems strangely selective, Mr. Sheriff.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is a good place to start. No need for science! This week's poll in US Weekly sez: ...

Do I have permission to use this line? A lot?



lol.
Arrogance? I pointed out that Higgs-Boson particle isn't particularly practical scientific research (a point you echoed) and now I don't know how else to sum up another 60 responses making the same ridiculous mistakes of silly anecdotal evidence, amplifying noise in long term trends, and pointing out that climate scientists can't predict the weather tomorrow. Idiocy. That's all it is. It's depressing that FNC can stupefy so many otherwise very smart people. I expect this stuff from BYU rejects. Not here.

I was about to make another post about you being embarrassed about who you were 15 years ago but wondered about whether the foundation was truly there. Then you allude to "BYU rejects" and you removed all doubt. Keep on rebelling and let us know more about your alcoholic beverage preferences.

[ERCougar]

I'm actually going to riff a little more on creek's observation. You know what real arrogance is? Thinking that your daily dose of Rush has given you brilliant insights that never occurred to scientists who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit.
To put it in a CMBF-style dichotomy, you're claiming that either 1) you (all) have a remarkable gift for climatology, math, geography, computer modelling, and so on or 2) there is a perhaps even more remarkable conspiracy going on to hide the truth, one that goes against what we see in every other field of science and one that holds up directly against some of the most financially powerful forces in the world. It's just absurd.

I think I'll trust my common sense and the consensus of people who know a lot more than I do on this one. I guess that's arrogant.

Or maybe I'll just read People.

[ERCougar]

I was about to make another post about you being embarrassed about who you were 15 years ago but wondered about whether the foundation was truly there. Then you allude to "BYU rejects" and you removed all doubt. Keep on rebelling and let us know more about your alcoholic beverage preferences.

I missed the first one. Dang. I'm sure it was comic gold.

[creekster]

Your arrogance filter seems strangely selective, Mr. Sheriff.

What makes you think it's filtered? Heck, I think you're arrogant too (and for the record, that is not a spoiler so I think I'm still safe, right?)

[creekster]

I'm actually going to riff a little more on creek's observation. You know what real arrogance is? Thinking that your daily dose of Rush has given you brilliant insights that never occurred to scientists who have dedicated their lives to this pursuit.
To put it in a CMBF-style dichotomy, you're claiming that either 1) you (all) have a remarkable gift for climatology, math, geography, computer modelling, and so on or 2) there is a perhaps even more remarkable conspiracy going on to hide the truth, one that goes against what we see in every other field of science and one that holds up directly against some of the most financially powerful forces in the world. It's just absurd.

I think I'll trust my common sense and the consensus of people who know a lot more than I do on this one. I guess that's arrogant.

Or maybe I'll just read People.

FTR, I never listen to Rush. My errors are my own.

[Uncle Ted]

The flaw in that logic would seem to be a consideration of the greenhouse effect in general, some degree of which is essential for life on earth, rather than the recent increase thereof. Regardless of CO2's influence relative to other factors, increasing atmospheric C02 also increases the greenhouse effect unless there's an equal decrease in something else. Increased CO2 causes warming, warmer air is more able to hold moisture and also increases the amount of evaporation and therefore water vapor, further increasing the greenhouse effect.

Utah is about 70-80% of normal but most of Colorado has ~100% normal snowpack. Should be a great year to refill the reservoir somewhat and rebound from the past two years. I am heading down this weekend.

Sadly, the quagga/zebra mussels have been found in big numbers at Wahweap. That is going to be a big problem over the next 20 years.

Someone is going to make a fortune when they invent a cheap way to extract all this extra water vapor out of the air and into Utah's reservoirs.

I need to get one of these to fill the water tank I am going to put in my back yard: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/tech/i...ater-from-air/

[All-American]

Someone is going to make a fortune when they invent a cheap way to extract all this extra water vapor out of the air and into Utah's reservoirs.

I need to get one of these to fill the water tank I am going to put in my back yard: http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/24/tech/i...ater-from-air/

Like on tatooine?

[Jeff Lebowski]

What makes you think it's filtered? Heck, I think you're arrogant too (and for the record, that is not a spoiler so I think I'm still safe, right?)

No worries. Not a spoiler at all. Totally predictable.

[Omaha 680]

By the way, this issue of extreme weather events is interesting, but it is not one of the core evidences of global warming. The foundation for climate change theory is the dramatic increases in greenhouse gases and the very simple relationship between those gases and temperature. Climate models predict that as temps start to rise, extreme weather events will gradually become more frequent. So a recent uptick in these weather events by itself does not prove anything (could be random fluctuation) but it is consistent with climate change, so you throw it on the pile with hundreds of other similar types of secondary evidence.

Hundreds of types? I ask this sincerely.