Online Now 691

Online now 716
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Global warming....again

  • SATerp

    asp1124 said... (original post)

    climate change aside, do you really think the shit we do to the environment is ok? you should be concerned about all this even if climate change never even came in to the discussion. there's a giant patch of garbage the size of texas in the ocean, and what's worse is, i doubt too many visitors to both could discern many differences between the two.

    I would have been happy to respond reasonably to your post, although the explanation that CO2 isn't "pollution" is one that I've posted about 7000 times here. But then you go to the same old ignorant liberal "TX sux" stuff, and then all desire to treat you like a rational person evaporates.

    This post was edited by SATerp 3 years ago

  • SATerp

    parlay said... (original post)

    I guess I should have left the hyperbole out. The bottom line: I used to look for your posts to read. Now I avoid them like the plague. Yes, we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I know I am not changing your mind and pretty much anyone else's on these topics. There are places where you could get a great debate raging on this topic I am sure. But you beat it like a dead horse here. Sdog and the weather guys get a fun thread going about the weather. You wait for an opportunity to pounce on it with this subject. Crickets to your post in the thread and it doesn't stop you the next time you see an opening. Trust me, we get it. You think we can pave the planet and it won't matter. As someone that's been around a while like you, I'm just trying to let you know that you have gone from a funny guy that liked to get into political threads to a hard line politico that occasionally throws a one liner.

    I'm not opening this again or going to respond any further. I don't want to go down that road. Just throwing out some unsolicited and likely unwanted advice. Back to my corner.

    I feel like Tommy DeVito.

    Henry Hill: You're a pistol, you're really funny. You're really funny.
    Tommy DeVito: What do you mean I'm funny?
    Henry Hill: It's funny, you know. It's a good story, it's funny, you're a funny guy.
    [laughs]
    Tommy DeVito: What do you mean, you mean the way I talk? What?
    Henry Hill: It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, the way you tell the story and everything.
    Tommy DeVito: [it becomes quiet] Funny how? What's funny about it?
    Anthony Stabile: Tommy no, You got it all wrong.
    Tommy DeVito: Oh, oh, Anthony. He's a big boy, he knows what he said. What did ya say? Funny how?
    Henry Hill: Jus...
    Tommy DeVito: What?
    Henry Hill: Just... ya know... you're funny.
    Tommy DeVito: You mean, let me understand this cause, ya know maybe it's me, I'm a little fucked up maybe, but I'm funny how, I mean funny like I'm a clown, I amuse you? I make you laugh, I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how? How am I funny?
    Henry Hill: Just... you know, how you tell the story, what?
    Tommy DeVito: No, no, I don't know, you said it. How do I know? You said I'm funny. How the fuck am I funny, what the fuck is so funny about me? Tell me, tell me what's funny!
    Henry Hill: [long pause] Get the fuck out of here, Tommy!
    Tommy DeVito: [everyone laughs] Ya motherfucker! I almost had him, I almost had him. Ya stuttering prick ya. Frankie, was he shaking? I wonder about you sometimes, Henry. You may fold under questioning.

  • Global warming is a hoax designed to pave the way for burdensome government regulation that will strangle business initiative. Kinda like when they tried to link smoking cigarettes with cancer.

  • Terp02 said... (original post)

    Please explain why climate change is happening in such a short amount of time then.

    Because people are freaking out about a small sample size.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by frode 3 years ago

  • Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s denial of global warming poses a “serious problem” for Republicans trying to take back the White House in 2012, presidential rival Jon Huntsman says.

    “The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party – the anti-science party, we have a huge problem. We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012,” the former Utah governor said in an interview that aired Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

    “When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said, what the National Academy of Sciences has said about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it,” he said, “I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position.”

    Last week, Perry, the latest entrant to the race for the GOP presidential nomination, said he doesn’t believe America should spend money on a “scientific theory that has not been proven.” That prompted a snarky tweet by Huntsman: “To be clear, I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy."

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0811/Huntsman_GOP_cant_become_antiscience_party.html

    Regarding climate change, if you deny it then one of these two things must be true.
    1) As a layperson in the field, you understand climate science better than the all of the world's climate scientists.
    or
    2) All of the climate scientists and Science Academies across the globe have conspired and engaged in a fraud.

    Which is it?

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by VousGoo 3 years ago

  • VousGoo said... (original post)


    Regarding climate change, if you deny it then one of these two things must be true. 1) As a layperson in the field, you understand climate science better than the all of the world's climate scientists. or 2) All of the climate scientists and Science Academies across the globe have conspired and engaged in a fraud.

    Which is it?

    Hell, it's even more simple than that:

    1) Do you understand and believe in the basic function of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (ie, absorb and reemit infrared radiation)?

    2) Do you recognize that humans are releasing previously sequested carbon in the form of carbon dioxide as waste due to burning fossil fuels?

    If the answer is yes to both of those, then it is absolutely certain that humans are responsible for putting a warming agent in the atmosphere. How much that agent will actually affect climate is the only thing up for debate, and the only way to really settle that is via direct observation (hello, greater temperature anomaly and destabilized weather patterns!).

    If the answer is no to either of those questions...well...do some research maybe?

  • TheRawDogg

    frode said... (original post)

    Because people are freaking out about a small sample size.

    A 1973 article? That's what you got? F'real

  • LeafeeWolf said... (original post)

    Hell, it's even more simple than that:

    1) Do you understand and believe in the basic function of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas (ie, absorb and reemit infrared radiation)?

    2) Do you recognize that humans are releasing previously sequested carbon in the form of carbon dioxide as waste due to burning fossil fuels?

    If the answer is yes to both of those, then it is absolutely certain that humans are responsible for putting a warming agent in the atmosphere. How much that agent will actually affect climate is the only thing up for debate, and the only way to really settle that is via direct observation (hello, greater temperature anomaly and destabilized weather patterns!).

    If the answer is no to either of those questions...well...do some research maybe?

    No - it's not as simple as that, although liberals love to try to make it a black and white situation.

    The debate is not over, and there's not a "consensus" among every single scientist on the subject. In fact, there's a large pool of real scientists that dismiss the anthropomorphic climate change theory.

    The debate centers around how much impact does CO2 really have on temperature vs. natural factors, such as H20 and solar activity. There are numerous scientists that say the impact of CO2 is neglible compared to natural factors.

    For example, please read up on the recent development from CERN.

    Anne Jolis: The Other Climate Theory - WSJ.co

    In The Wall Street Journal, Anne Jolis writes that Al Gore won't hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
  • I won't lie - the cloud chamber sounds pretty fascinating to me.

    The WSJ article has some snarky undertones (particularly talking about "baptism" into the climate science discussion)...but compared to your usual editorials, it is fairly tame.

    I'm just not happy with how this discussion has gotten politicized to ignore larger issues. I.e. let's demonize alternate energy on one hand, or demonize additional oil exploration/nuclear use on the other. Why not do both at the same time? Obviously don't invest in companies that can't even sustain themselves, i.e. Solyndra (source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276019/sunburned-editors), but I mean jeez, a little less polarized discussion would be nice.

  • The high-energy protons seemed to enhance the production of nanometre-sized particles from the gaseous atmosphere by more than a factor of ten. But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step," he says.
    - Jasper Kirkby the physicist at CERN who led the experiment

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cloud-formation-may-be-linked-to-cosmic-rays

    More info on the CERN experiment
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming.htm

    Also there is indeed a consensus.
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

  • Mav451 said... (original post)

    I won't lie - the cloud chamber sounds pretty fascinating to me.

    The WSJ article has some snarky undertones (particularly talking about "baptism" into the climate science discussion)...but compared to your usual editorials, it is fairly tame.

    I'm just not happy with how this discussion has gotten politicized to ignore larger issues. I.e. let's demonize alternate energy on one hand, or demonize additional oil exploration/nuclear use on the other. Why not do both at the same time? Obviously don't invest in companies that can't even sustain themselves, i.e. Solyndra (source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276019/sunburned-editors), but I mean jeez, a little less polarized discussion would be nice.

    I agree that it's a shame that a discussion surrounding energy and environmental is almost always polarized; just like many other political topics. Unfortunately, it's been that way for a long time.

    My pet peeve is that science itself has become too political where the notion of challenging existing theories, which used to be a staple of science, has now become almost taboo.

  • SizzleLean said... (original post)

    No - it's not as simple as that, although liberals love to try to make it a black and white situation.

    The debate is not over, and there's not a "consensus" among every single scientist on the subject. In fact, there's a large pool of real scientists that dismiss the anthropomorphic climate change theory.

    The debate centers around how much impact does CO2 really have on temperature vs. natural factors, such as H20 and solar activity. There are numerous scientists that say the impact of CO2 is neglible compared to natural factors.

    For example, please read up on the recent development from CERN.

    Unfortunately, it really has gotten to the point that you have to make it a black or white issue, since if you don't, people will use any toe-hold to validate their held belief (see your CERN argument).

    It is like telling people that if you flip a fair coin ad infinitum, the result will be 50% heads, and 50% tails. If you allow that a coin may land on its edge, then people will use that to say that you will always more often get heads than tails. Better to simply state the unambiguous facts, and deal with ambiguity with people who understand the relative lack of importance of it.

  • TheRawDogg said... (original post)

    A 1973 article? That's what you got? F'real

    You don't see the significance of it? In 1975, climate scientists were warning of the "coming ice age". You can find a PDF if you Google it. The funniest thing is that one of the scientists mentioned in that article is also one of the prominent "global warming" alarmists starting in the late 90s.

    FYI, both the article and the current hysteria over the climate are specifically making the case that the climate change is anthropogenic, and that if we didn't change our ways (political agenda alert!), life as we know it would cease to exist.

  • LeafeeWolf said... (original post)

    Unfortunately, it really has gotten to the point that you have to make it a black or white issue, since if you don't, people will use any toe-hold to validate their held belief (see your CERN argument).

    It is like telling people that if you flip a fair coin ad infinitum, the result will be 50% heads, and 50% tails. If you allow that a coin may land on its edge, then people will use that to say that you will always more often get heads than tails. Better to simply state the unambiguous facts, and deal with ambiguity with people who understand the relative lack of importance of it.

    Poor analogy....climate science is much more complicated that a simple coin flip. Your whole premise is flawed that there are absolute unambiguous facts dealing with climate science. There are so many assumptions that have been made with modeling and experiment setup, that it really isn't as settled as you may think.

  • SizzleLean said... (original post)

    I agree that it's a shame that a discussion surrounding energy and environmental is almost always polarized; just like many other political topics. Unfortunately, it's been that way for a long time.

    My pet peeve is that science itself has become too political where the notion of challenging existing theories, which used to be a staple of science, has now become almost taboo.

    Sorry to use such a cliched example, but when was the last contradictory paper published against the idea that the world is round?

    The idea of a preponderance of evidence weighting its side has ALWAYS been a foundation of scientific discourse. One can not just throw out every observation that has come before because THIS observation fits with one's belief system.

    There are still contrarian papers being published on anthropogenic climate change...the thing is that they usually fall to pieces when faced with rigorous scientific scrutiny (like this recent one that may violate the law of conservation of energy, for christ sake http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/simplified-model-in-recent-climate-paper-doesnt-even-conserve-energy.ars )

  • LeafeeWolf said... (original post)

    Sorry to use such a cliched example, but when was the last contradictory paper published against the idea that the world is round?

    The idea of a preponderance of evidence weighting its side has ALWAYS been a foundation of scientific discourse. One can not just throw out every observation that has come before because THIS observation fits with one's belief system.

    There are still contrarian papers being published on anthropogenic climate change...the thing is that they usually fall to pieces when faced with rigorous scientific scrutiny (like this recent one that may violate the law of conservation of energy, for christ sake http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/simplified-model-in-recent-climate-paper-doesnt-even-conserve-energy.ars )

    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf

    http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

    http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/downloads/scientific_paper_on_global_warming.pdf

    http://friendsofginandtonic.org/page5/page10/assets/hutton%20-%20climate%20change.pdf#page=3

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

    "the thing is that they usually fall to pieces when faced with rigorous scientific scrutiny ...." - you mean the famous hockey stick graph (Michael Mann) that was debunked and the climate gate emails that detailed data falsification?

    This post was edited by SizzleLean 3 years ago

  • http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/08/solyndra-officials-made-numerous-trips-to-the-white-house-logs-show/

    The House Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigative panel announced it will hold hearings next Wednesday on the government’s Solyndra loan. ABC News and iWatch News have also learned that Senate investigators have begun seeking answers from the administration about the deal.

    “How did this company, without maybe the best economic plan, all of a sudden get to the head of the line?” said committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R.-Michigan, in an ABC News interview last week. “We want to know who made this decision . . . and we’re not going to stop until we get those answers.”

    How did they jump to the head of the line? Oh, who could possibly answer such a question.

    According to White House visitor logs, between March 12, 2009, and April 14, 2011, Solyndra officials and investors made no fewer than 20 trips to the West Wing. In the week before the administration awarded Solyndra with the first-ever alternative energy loan guarantee on March 20, four separate visits were logged.

    George Kaiser, who has in the past been labeled a major Solyndra investor as well as a Obama donor, made three visits to the White House on March 12, 2009, and one on March 13. Kaiser has denied any direct involvement in the Solyndra deal and through a statement from his foundation said he “did not participate in any discussions with the U.S. government regarding the loan.”

    But the countless meetings at the White House seem hardly coincidental. Kaiser, in fact, is responsible for 16 of the 20 meetings that showed up on the White House logs.

    Weasel Zippers » Blog Archive » House To H

    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/08/house-to-hold-hearings-next-week-on-collapse-of-taxpayer-funded-solyndra-senate-investigation-launched/

    http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/08/house-to-hold-hearings-next-week-on-collapse-of-taxpayer-funded-solyndra-senate-investigation-launched/

    This post was edited by frode 3 years ago

  • I for one am tired of "Big Science" pushing our industrial, energy, farming, chemical, and manufacturing conglomerates around.

  • Even George Bush came around said climate change is occurring and the we're largely responsible. Are you guys saying you're dumber than George Bush?

  • cjterps98 said... (original post)

    Even George Bush came around said climate change is occurring and the we're largely responsible. Are you guys saying you're dumber than George Bush?

    We really need a sarcasm font for posts like this ... I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    We really need a sarcasm font for posts like this ... I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

    Fair enough....I'll take my science from W and the scientific community rather than Michelle Bachmann.

  • Climate change has been occurring since well before the dawn of man. That's not the issue.

    This post was edited by frode 3 years ago

  • EPA...worst federal agency ever?

    *****************

    The EPA is using taxpayer money to encourage environmentalist groups to sue … the EPA. This has continued for decades.

    The EPA has paid one of these groups to produce a do-it-yourself guide to suing the EPA.

    The EPA frequently enters into consent decrees to settle the suits. Even when the EPA doesn’t hand out megadollar settlements — your money — to the litigious loons, it commonly pays their attorney’s fees.

    Why would the EPA do something so obviously crazy?

    High-level EPA bureaucrats commonly support the leftist environmentalist beliefs of these groups, as do a great many of the career employees of the agency. They look to serve the leftist groups, not their employers.

    Generally speaking, Congress has not authorized the EPA to do most of the things such people live to do, things such as regulating and litigating energy producers, small businesses, and large corporations out of existence. But EPA bureaucrats tend not to like such small-minded, non-nuanced strictures, so they encourage their fellow travelers in the environmentalist movement to sue the EPA. The hope is that the courts can force the EPA to do what the EPA wanted to do in the first place. Rather than erecting a vigorous defense to frivolous environmentalist lawsuits, the EPA simply caves.

    Here’s an example of how the process works:

    When the Environmental Protection Agency said in late June that it would force Western coal-fired power plants to install haze-reducing pollution-control equipment at a cost of $1.5 billion a year, it said it had to in order to settle a lawsuit by environmental groups.

    One organization involved in the suit, the Environmental Defense Fund, has a long history of taking the EPA to court. In fact, a cursory review finds almost half a dozen cases in the past 10 years.

    The odd thing is that the EPA, in turn, has handed EDF $2.76 million in grants over that same period, according to an IBD review of the agency’s grant database.

    From where does all this money come? From we, the people, so that the EPA can in essence sue itself to fund its real allies while getting what they wanted in the first place.


    EPA Funds Green Groups That Sue The Agency

    When the Environmental Protection Agency said in late June that it would force Western coal-fired power plants to install haze-reducing pollution-control equipment at a cost of $1.5 billion a year, it said it had to in order to settle a lawsuit by environmental groups.

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577430/201107061817/EPA-Funds-Greens-That-Sue-It.aspx
  • SizzleLean said... (original post)


    "the thing is that they usually fall to pieces when faced with rigorous scientific scrutiny ...." - you mean the famous hockey stick graph (Michael Mann) that was debunked and the climate gate emails that detailed data falsification?

    So first you say that the scientific community is not examining the issue any more, then you show where the scientific community has put pro-warming to scientific scrutiny?

    Also, you may try doing a little research about the climate gate thing...

    http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/08/feds-clear-climategate-scientist

    "No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."

    Complete and utter vindication...there was no wrongdoing, and you can STFU about it now.

  • SATerp

    LeafeeWolf said... (original post)

    So first you say that the scientific community is not examining the issue any more, then you show where the scientific community has put pro-warming to scientific scrutiny?

    Also, you may try doing a little research about the climate gate thing...

    http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2011/08/feds-clear-climategate-scientist

    "No direct evidence has been presented that indicates the subject fabricated the raw data he used for his research or falsified his results," the report concludes. "Lacking any direct evidence of research misconduct, ... we are closing this investigation with no further action."

    Complete and utter vindication...there was no wrongdoing, and you can STFU about it now.

    Is the NSF unbiased on global warming, or do they hold an opinion? What is that opinion?