Author Topic: A rational Republican?  (Read 18951 times)

Offline Ray Brinzer

  • Ipse Dixit
  • Administrator
  • Get a Job
  • *****
  • Posts: 7104
    • View Profile
    • http://ray.brinzer.net/
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #15 on: August 19, 2011, 11:25:11 PM »
So a person is only rational if they believe as you do?

That seems to be the point on which all sides agree.

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34242
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #16 on: August 19, 2011, 11:37:22 PM »
WHICH scientists??
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

crablegs

  • Guest
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #17 on: August 20, 2011, 12:24:33 AM »
WHICH scientists??
The 95%, not the 5%.  In the case of evolution, the 100%

Offline ViseGrip

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 34242
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #18 on: August 20, 2011, 12:30:19 AM »
WHICH scientists??
The 95%, not the 5%.  In the case of evolution, the 100%
I wont quibble with evolution but global warming is another story.

Sorry crab... ONLY scientists with EXPERTISE in climatology count.

What % of CLIMATOLOGISTS support anthropomorphic global warming?
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 12:31:20 AM by ViseGrip »
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all that want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics" -Thomas Sowell

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15874
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #19 on: August 20, 2011, 07:35:34 AM »
WHICH scientists??
The 95%, not the 5%.  In the case of evolution, the 100%
So Einstein was not rational nor intelligent.  He had no reasoning ability.  Interesting take there Crabby.  You make "hit and run" statements about different topics all the time.  When you are confronted, you are nowhere to be found.  Case in point is that you said that Perry is a religious nutcase that would make him unelectable.  When asked to support your claim - chirp, chirp, chirp.  Clearly you are not rational judging by your own explanation.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15874
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #20 on: August 20, 2011, 07:38:31 AM »
WHICH scientists??
The 95%, not the 5%.  In the case of evolution, the 100%
BTW, your statistics are just flat out lies.  Why lies - because you know full well that your are providing false information - both numbers.
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

crablegs

  • Guest
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #21 on: August 20, 2011, 08:09:33 AM »
WHICH scientists??
The 95%, not the 5%.  In the case of evolution, the 100%
I wont quibble with evolution but global warming is another story.

Sorry crab... ONLY scientists with EXPERTISE in climatology count.

What % of CLIMATOLOGISTS support anthropomorphic global warming?
You are right, it is not 95%, it is 97% of climatologists.  http://articles.cnn.com/2009-01-19/world/eco.globalwarmingsurvey_1_global-warming-climate-science-human-activity?_s=PM:WORLD

Quote
Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 20417
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #22 on: August 20, 2011, 08:16:52 AM »
Quote
the earth is old, we know history back about .00000001% and we extrapolate that information... which i call.... let me see here..........bullshit.

 :) Huntsman won't even be a footnote on the 2012 campaign.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton

Offline Bob H.

  • I Need More Hobbies
  • *****
  • Posts: 4304
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #23 on: August 20, 2011, 10:19:28 AM »
crabby:

I agree that humanity has played a role in climate change, but it is a very small role.  IMO, humanity can have large effects on the environment locally, but is not powerful enough to have much of an effect globally.  I am also quick to point out the shrinking polar ice caps on Mars, which coincides with the timing of the same on Earth.

Does my position put me in the 82% or the 18%?

crablegs

  • Guest
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2011, 11:42:00 AM »
I dunno, do you have a Phd in the life sciences?

And since you admit that man had an effect on the climate (no matter how small or large) I would say you are in the 82. 

Offline Bob H.

  • I Need More Hobbies
  • *****
  • Posts: 4304
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2011, 02:34:26 PM »
Ok, so if my position puts me in line with the 82%, now we are talking about a matter of degree.  IMO, most of the solutions pushed by the environmentalist lobby are the equivalent of shooting a flea with an elephant gun.  It will inflict a lot of damage (to the economy and personal liberty), but probably won't accomplish its goal.  We would be much better off looking at alternative solutions (such as eliminating subsidies for insurance on coastal properties, which just encourages more building in the flood hazard zones) instead of attacking carbon dioxide emissions at a tremendous cost to the economy and individuals.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 05:18:10 PM by Bob H. »

Offline ajt

  • World Team
  • ****
  • Posts: 1626
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2011, 03:55:36 PM »
we all need to do our part to stave off the next ice age.

that is the only climate change worth even worrying about at all.

all others make humans more suited to life not less... in fact 7billion people kinda proves that point.



but here is an article by a guy with a PhD from Stanford.

Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about

By David Evans

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Let’s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let’s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet’s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

That’s the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade — yet they have the gall to tell us “it’s worse than expected.” These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government — how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.

Financial Post
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 04:08:46 PM by ajt »
Laws control the lesser man... Right conduct controls the greater one.
Mark Twain

Offline Cougar1

  • LXP
  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 20417
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2011, 04:31:19 PM »
Quote
But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

I pointed this out in a thread some time ago. It would be entirely to their disadvantage to practice real science.
“Once abolish the God and the government becomes the God.”

― G.K. Chesterton

Offline ctc

  • Get a Job
  • *
  • Posts: 15874
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #28 on: August 20, 2011, 05:53:18 PM »
Does man influence global warming - yes, just not the way alarmists like shyster Al Gore panhandles.  DFW is warmer than the countryside.  It is the concrete island.  Does it make the world warmer - minutely.  It is all about how the question is posed to scientists.
« Last Edit: August 20, 2011, 05:54:04 PM by ctc »
Several are on "ignore".   I won't argue with the ignorant and disrespectful..
 "People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive" ~ Blaise Pascal

Offline Kingk0ng

  • World Silver
  • *****
  • Posts: 2446
    • View Profile
Re: A rational Republican?
« Reply #29 on: August 20, 2011, 06:34:58 PM »
We have to stop it or we are DOOMED!

Quote

August 20, 2011 12:00 PM EDT

Global warming may not remain merely 'global' anymore, as a new study suggests its cosmic impact.

Beyond endangering the earthly inhabitants, humans may have posed a serious threat to the entire galaxy, possibly prompting aliens to destroy humanity in order to end global warming and save the rest of the galaxy from being contaminated as well.


Surprisingly, the suggestion comes from one of NASA's scientists.

The scenario was brought up in a joint study by Penn State University and the NASA Planetary Science Division, titled "Would Contact with Extraterrestrials Benefit or Harm Humanity? A Scenario Analysis."

"A preemptive strike would be particularly likely in the early phases of our expansion because a civilization may become increasingly difficult to destroy as it continues to expand," the study says. "Humanity may just now be entering the period in which its rapid civilizational expansion could be detected by an ETI (extraterrestrial intelligence) because our expansion is changing the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, via greenhouse gas emissions."
By using spectrometry, extraterrestrials could detect changes in Earth's atmosphere and deduce that we're out of control, speculated the researchers, among a number of other scenarios discussed in the 33-page paper.

Some scenarios suggest that human contact with aliens would be beneficial, such as how aliens would help us acquire better knowledge and help us solve problems such as hunger, poverty and enable us to eliminate diseases. Another scenario points toward an alliance between humans and Aliens to help us protect ourselves from an attack by other extra-territorial beings.

The neutral scenarios, on the other hand, involve situations in which aliens do not try to communicate with us and prefer to observe us without making any contact.

The harmful scenario, on the other hand, are a bit more dramatic as NASA scientists warn aliens could attack us, enslave us, eat us or spread alien diseases among us or among crucial food species, to destroy us.

"These scenarios give us reason to limit our growth and reduce our impact on global ecosystems. It would be particularly important for us to limit our emissions of greenhouse gases, since atmospheric composition can be observed from other planets," stated the authors.

"Should a hostile group choose open large-scale invasion, we wouldn't see just a few over a city exercising military operations, I believe we would see not just thousands, but tens of thousands of craft landing simultaneously worldwide in order to drop large numbers of their own troops on our soil for military purposes," says UFO Digest in a report.

To prevent these disasters from happening and risk destroying humanity and its future, the document suggest we refrain from sending signals into space, and insist we should especially diminish broadcasts that would provide the potential extraterritorial visitors with information about our biological makeup.

"If contact between humans and ETI is possible, then it is important to consider the capability of ETI to cause us benefit or harm. This information is important across nearly the full breadth of contact scenarios," the authors further added. "Although we cannot know the level of technological sophistication achieved by ETI, we do have a compelling reason to believe that ETI would be significantly stronger than us and therefore highly capable of causing our total destruction. This point has been raised repeatedly throughout the literature."

Domagal-Goldman, the lead author, later made it clear that the study was not a "NASA report" and that no NASA funding was expended on it. He also said that his two co-authors, Seth Baum and JacobHaqq-Misra of Pennsylvania State University worked on it.
Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don't mind. (Dr. Seuss)