Login to AccuWeather.com Premium Login to AccuWeather.com Professional Login to AccuWeather.com RadarPlus AccuWeather.com

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Jim Hansen's speech to the National Press Club, Re-Opened after 24 Hours
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jun 25 2008, 02:48 AM
Post #1







Guests








(The accompanying slides can be viewed here.)

Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near
James Hansen1

My presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to Congress, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals.

I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, still possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year. On 23 June 1988 I testified to a hearing, chaired by Senator Tim Wirth of Colorado, that the Earth had entered a long-term warming trend and that human-made greenhouse gases almost surely were responsible. I noted that global warming enhanced both extremes of the water cycle, meaning stronger droughts and forest fires, on the one hand, but also heavier rains and floods.

My testimony two decades ago was greeted with skepticism. But while skepticism is the lifeblood of science, it can confuse the public. As scientists examine a topic from all perspectives, it may appear that nothing is known with confidence. But from such broad openminded study of all data, valid conclusions can be drawn.

My conclusions in 1988 were built on a wide range of inputs from basic physics, planetary studies, observations of on-going changes, and climate models. The evidence was strong enough that I could say it was time to “stop waffling”. I was sure that time would bring the scientific community to a similar consensus, as it has.

While international recognition of global warming was swift, actions have faltered. The U.S. refused to place limits on its emissions, and developing countries such as China and India rapidly increased their emissions.

What is at stake? Warming so far, about two degrees Fahrenheit over land areas, seems almost innocuous, being less than day-to-day weather fluctuations. But more warming is already “in the pipeline”, delayed only by the great inertia of the world ocean. And climate is nearing dangerous tipping points. Elements of a “perfect storm”, a global cataclysm, are assembled. Climate can reach points such that amplifying feedbacks spur large rapid changes. Arctic sea ice is a current example. Global warming initiated sea ice melt, exposing darker ocean that absorbs more sunlight, melting more ice. As a result, without any additional greenhouse gases, the Arctic soon will be ice-free in the summer.

More ominous tipping points loom. West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are vulnerable to even small additional warming. These two-mile-thick behemoths respond slowly at first, but if disintegration gets well underway it will become unstoppable. Debate among scientists is only about how much sea level would rise by a given date. In my opinion, if emissions follow a business-as-usual scenario, sea level rise of at least two meters is likely this century. Hundreds of millions of people would become refugees. No stable shoreline would be reestablished in any time frame that humanity can conceive.

Animal and plant species are already stressed by climate change. Polar and alpine species will be pushed off the planet, if warming continues. Other species attempt to migrate, but as some are extinguished their interdependencies can cause ecosystem collapse. Mass extinctions, of more than half the species on the planet, have occurred several times when the Earth warmed as much as expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase. Biodiversity recovered, but it required hundreds of thousands of years.

The disturbing conclusion, documented in a paper2 I have written with several of the world’s leading climate experts, is that the safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 ppm (parts per million) and it may be less. Carbon dioxide amount is already 385 ppm and rising about 2 ppm per year. Stunning corollary: the oft-stated goal to keep global warming less than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is a recipe for global disaster, not salvation.

These conclusions are based on paleoclimate data showing how the Earth responded to past levels of greenhouse gases and on observations showing how the world is responding to today’s carbon dioxide amount. The consequences of continued increase of greenhouse gases extend far beyond extermination of species and future sea level rise.

Arid subtropical climate zones are expanding poleward. Already an average expansion of about 250 miles has occurred, affecting the southern United States, the Mediterranean region, Australia and southern Africa. Forest fires and drying-up of lakes will increase further unless carbon dioxide growth is halted and reversed.

Mountain glaciers are the source of fresh water for hundreds of millions of people. These glaciers are receding world-wide, in the Himalayas, Andes and Rocky Mountains. They will disappear, leaving their rivers as trickles in late summer and fall, unless the growth of carbon dioxide is reversed.

Coral reefs, the rainforest of the ocean, are home for one-third of the species in the sea. Coral reefs are under stress for several reasons, including warming of the ocean, but especially because of ocean acidification, a direct effect of added carbon dioxide. Ocean life dependent on carbonate shells and skeletons is threatened by dissolution as the ocean becomes more acid.

Such phenomena, including the instability of Arctic sea ice and the great ice sheets at today’s carbon dioxide amount, show that we have already gone too far. We must draw down atmospheric carbon dioxide to preserve the planet we know. A level of no more than 350 ppm is still feasible, with the help of reforestation and improved agricultural practices, but just barely – time is running out.

Requirements to halt carbon dioxide growth follow from the size of fossil carbon reservoirs. Coal towers over oil and gas. Phase out of coal use except where the carbon is captured and stored below ground is the primary requirement for solving global warming.

Oil is used in vehicles where it is impractical to capture the carbon. But oil is running out. To preserve our planet we must also ensure that the next mobile energy source is not obtained by squeezing oil from coal, tar shale or other fossil fuels.

Fossil fuel reservoirs are finite, which is the main reason that prices are rising. We must move beyond fossil fuels eventually. Solution of the climate problem requires that we move to carbon-free energy promptly.

Special interests have blocked transition to our renewable energy future. Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, as tobacco companies discredited the smoking-cancer link. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming.

CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.

Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation, if we pass on a runaway climate to our children. Humanity would be impoverished by ravages of continually shifting shorelines and intensification of regional climate extremes. Loss of countless species would leave a more desolate planet.

If politicians remain at loggerheads, citizens must lead. We must demand a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants. We must block fossil fuel interests who aim to squeeze every last drop of oil from public lands, off-shore, and wilderness areas. Those last drops are no solution. They yield continued exorbitant profits for a short-sighted self-serving industry, but no alleviation of our addiction or long-term energy source.

Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy is challenging, yet transformative in ways that will be welcomed. Cheap, subsidized fossil fuels engendered bad habits. We import food from halfway around the world, for example, even with healthier products available from nearby fields. Local produce would be competitive if not for fossil fuel subsidies and the fact that climate change damages and costs, due to fossil fuels, are also borne by the public.

A price on emissions that cause harm is essential. Yes, a carbon tax. Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend3 is needed to wean us off fossil fuel addiction. Tax and dividend allows the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions.

Carbon tax on coal, oil and gas is simple, applied at the first point of sale or port of entry. The entire tax must be returned to the public, an equal amount to each adult, a half-share for children. This dividend can be deposited monthly in an individual’s bank account.

Carbon tax with 100 percent dividend is non-regressive. On the contrary, you can bet that low and middle income people will find ways to limit their carbon tax and come out ahead. Profligate energy users will have to pay for their excesses.

Demand for low-carbon high-efficiency products will spur innovation, making our products more competitive on international markets. Carbon emissions will plummet as energy efficiency and renewable energies grow rapidly. Black soot, mercury and other fossil fuel emissions will decline. A brighter, cleaner future, with energy independence, is possible. Washington likes to spend our tax money line-by-line. Swarms of high-priced lobbyists in alligator shoes help Congress decide where to spend, and in turn the lobbyists’ clients provide “campaign” money.

The public must send a message to Washington. Preserve our planet, creation, for our children and grandchildren, but do not use that as an excuse for more tax-and-spend. Let this be our motto: “One hundred percent dividend or fight!”

The next President must make a national low-loss electric grid an imperative. It will allow dispersed renewable energies to supplant fossil fuels for power generation. Technology exists for direct-current high-voltage buried transmission lines. Trunk lines can be completed in less than a decade and expanded analogous to interstate highways.

Government must also change utility regulations so that profits do not depend on selling ever more energy, but instead increase with efficiency. Building code and vehicle efficiency requirements must be improved and put on a path toward carbon neutrality.

The fossil-industry maintains its strangle-hold on Washington via demagoguery, using China and other developing nations as scapegoats to rationalize inaction. In fact, we produced most of the excess carbon in the air today, and it is to our advantage as a nation to move smartly in developing ways to reduce emissions. As with the ozone problem, developing countries can be allowed limited extra time to reduce emissions. They will cooperate: they have much to lose from climate change and much to gain from clean air and reduced dependence on fossil fuels.

We must establish fair agreements with other countries. However, our own tax and dividend should start immediately. We have much to gain from it as a nation, and other countries will copy our success. If necessary, import duties on products from uncooperative countries can level the playing field, with the import tax added to the dividend pool.

Democracy works, but sometimes churns slowly. Time is short. The 2008 election is critical for the planet. If Americans turn out to pasture the most brontosaurian congressmen, if Washington adapts to address climate change, our children and grandchildren can still hold great expectations.

1 Dr. James E. Hansen, a physicist by training, directs the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a laboratory of the Goddard Space Flight Center and a unit of the Columbia University Earth Institute, but he speaks as a private citizen today at the National Press Club and at a Briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence & Global Warming.

2 Target atmospheric CO2: where should humanity aim? J. Hansen, M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M. Raymo, D.L. Royer, J.C. Zachos, http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126 and http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1135

3 The proposed “tax and 100% dividend” is based largely on the cap and dividend approach described by Peter Barnes in “Who Owns the Sky: Our Common Assets and the Future of Capitalism”, Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2001 (http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=149&contentID=3867).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jun 25 2008, 12:04 PM
Post #2







Guests








QUOTE(Chris F @ Jun 25 2008, 04:08 AM) *
Sea levels aren't going to rise two metres this century, that's typical scare-mongering on the alarmist side. But I'm certain Steve Bloom agrees with throwing any CEO's of companies that provide us with prosperity in jail. Can't have any progress or security in this country, that has to go.


We would all love to see your analysis as to why that's impossible, Chris.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris F
post Jun 27 2008, 06:02 AM
Post #3




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 15-June 08
From: Pembroke, Ont
Member No.: 15,107





Because it isn't going to get warm enough to melt enough ice on Greenland and Antartica this century.
Funny how this global cooling was forecast to happen by William Gray the crackpot.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jun 27 2008, 12:33 PM
Post #4







Guests








QUOTE(Chris F @ Jun 27 2008, 04:02 AM) *
Because it isn't going to get warm enough to melt enough ice on Greenland and Antartica this century.
Funny how this global cooling was forecast to happen by William Gray the crackpot.


And what exactly was Gray's forecast, Chris F? I think it's good topic for discussion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fool4Fuel
post Jun 27 2008, 12:35 PM
Post #5




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 23-June 08
Member No.: 15,141





I'm sure Hansen has at least HEARD of this . . . why is there no discussion on the REAL REASON for GW ???

Link:http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm

I am just looking for answers. Thank You.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris F
post Jun 28 2008, 01:58 PM
Post #6




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 15-June 08
From: Pembroke, Ont
Member No.: 15,107





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jun 27 2008, 01:33 PM) *
And what exactly was Gray's forecast, Chris F? I think it's good topic for discussion.

His forecast was for cooling to start, which it has. His timeline hasn't been the best but like geologists know, the warming will cease and a cold period will set in. Whether it's short-term or longer is yet to be seen, but it won't be beneficial at all for humankind like this warm period is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2301305_pf.html
This link is a couple years old but he says in as short as three years it will begin cooling.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jun 29 2008, 12:10 AM
Post #7







Guests








QUOTE(Chris F @ Jun 28 2008, 11:58 AM) *
His forecast was for cooling to start, which it has. His timeline hasn't been the best but like geologists know, the warming will cease and a cold period will set in. Whether it's short-term or longer is yet to be seen, but it won't be beneficial at all for humankind like this warm period is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2301305_pf.html
This link is a couple years old but he says in as short as three years it will begin cooling.


Well, Chris F, for it to be called a "forecast" I think it needs to be a little better than that. Like for instance when a weather forecaster predicts colder temps they might point to a cold front headed into the area. There's a reason why Gray hasn't been able to convince any colleagues. Note from the article that even other denialist scientists (what few there are) don't buy in to his ideas.

One of the things geologists do know, BTW, is that the Earth has been much warmer than present for most of the last half billion years. Whether it getting warm again would ultimately be a good thing or not is an interesting question, but the problem is that life will get rather unpleasant in the interim. Even a relatively slight sea level rise, for example, will displace tens or hundreds of millions of people, inundate large amounts of fertile land and infrastructure, and wipe out the productivity of estuaries. Don't those consequences sound like things that would be better to avoid?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Fool4Fuel
post Jun 29 2008, 09:51 AM
Post #8




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 31
Joined: 23-June 08
Member No.: 15,141





One of the things geologists do know, BTW, is that the Earth has been much warmer than present for most of the last half billion years. Whether it getting warm again would ultimately be a good thing or not is an interesting question, but the problem is that life will get rather unpleasant in the interim. Even a relatively slight sea level rise, for example, will displace tens or hundreds of millions of people, inundate large amounts of fertile land and infrastructure, and wipe out the productivity of estuaries. Don't those consequences sound like things that would be better to avoid?

It has been warmer in the past, yes . . . but if early man had levied a "carbon tax" on the flatulence of large mammals, well, maybe things would have been different . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris F
post Jun 29 2008, 05:52 PM
Post #9




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 15-June 08
From: Pembroke, Ont
Member No.: 15,107





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jun 29 2008, 01:10 AM) *
Well, Chris F, for it to be called a "forecast" I think it needs to be a little better than that. Like for instance when a weather forecaster predicts colder temps they might point to a cold front headed into the area. There's a reason why Gray hasn't been able to convince any colleagues. Note from the article that even other denialist scientists (what few there are) don't buy in to his ideas.

One of the things geologists do know, BTW, is that the Earth has been much warmer than present for most of the last half billion years. Whether it getting warm again would ultimately be a good thing or not is an interesting question, but the problem is that life will get rather unpleasant in the interim. Even a relatively slight sea level rise, for example, will displace tens or hundreds of millions of people, inundate large amounts of fertile land and infrastructure, and wipe out the productivity of estuaries. Don't those consequences sound like things that would be better to avoid?

The sea level rise is a definite problem but it will happen so slowly that people will adapt by building levees and such or adding earth to any new development. This must also be done if it's natural warming as a lot of us believe, so stop spending all those dollars trying to prevent it from happening and get on with the serious and only option of adaptation. I can live with my government helping out poor countries to adapt as that's the moral and right thing to do, but I can't abide by spending money foolishly to reduce CO2 output when so many great scientists don't agree with the CO2 hypothesis.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jun 30 2008, 05:32 AM
Post #10







Guests








The current science points to about 2 meters this century, although it could get worse.

Re the "many great scientists," I think it's a short list indeed. See here. The majority of these folks lack climate science qualifications, and only one or two could be described as "great." Note that some don't question the "CO2 hypothesis" at all, but state other concerns.

Contrast that list to the consensus.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Chris F
post Jun 30 2008, 08:12 PM
Post #11




Rank: Whirlwind
*

Group: Member
Posts: 38
Joined: 15-June 08
From: Pembroke, Ont
Member No.: 15,107





Wikipedia is proven to be a mouthpiece biased toward the global warmist propaganda so anything from there now concerning the climate is irrelevant: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ey-solomon.aspx
Those bodies under your consensus link don't poll their members to get their opinions on global warming, the top dogs there decide, and they decided to go with the tide. Not because of the science but because of the politics.
Here's a real "consensus": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0..._enough_to.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 3 2008, 11:42 AM
Post #12







Guests








QUOTE(Chris F @ Jun 30 2008, 06:12 PM) *
Wikipedia is proven to be a mouthpiece biased toward the global warmist propaganda so anything from there now concerning the climate is irrelevant: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...ey-solomon.aspx
Those bodies under your consensus link don't poll their members to get their opinions on global warming, the top dogs there decide, and they decided to go with the tide. Not because of the science but because of the politics.
Here's a real "consensus": http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/0..._enough_to.html


Yep, Chris F, it's a veritable phone book of names. People have checked them, and even taking the names at face value most of them are of folks who know nothing about climate science. See here for details.

You know, according to polls ~28% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job and ~18% think the sun travels around the earth. I think we've discovered "American Thinker's" audience.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monsoonevans
post Jul 3 2008, 02:12 PM
Post #13




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Moderator
Posts: 750
Joined: 11-January 08
From: Wayne, PA
Member No.: 12,210





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 3 2008, 12:42 PM) *
Yep, Chris F, it's a veritable phone book of names. People have checked them, and even taking the names at face value most of them are of folks who know nothing about climate science. See here for details.

You know, according to polls ~28% of Americans think Bush is doing a good job and ~18% think the sun travels around the earth. I think we've discovered "American Thinker's" audience.


As Chris F points out, Wikipedia is, without a doubt, anything from trustworthy. Quite the contrary actually. This is an on-going argument going on in the blogosphere about this very thing. Here is a snippet from a column by Rich Karlgaard of Forbes.com.
So has, sadly as it turns out, a source I rather like: Wikipedia. Solomon accuses the online encyclopedia of Big Brother censorship on global warming dissent and provides blow-by-blow evidence. Solomon names aWikipedia editor named Kim Dabelstein Petersen as the global warming enforcer. But the pro-global warming bias clearly comes from the top. Global warming is a pet hobby of founder Jimmy Wales.
I spent the time to go through the blogosphere battle on this and listened to BOTH sides of the story. The main thing people need to understand about Wikipedia is that it is NOT an Encyclopedia of factual substance. It is more or less a subjective resource of anyone who wants to post. They have gatekeepers that will monitor the information and decide on whats OK and whats not OK. Anyone of us can go in and make an entry. It will appear as long as it passes the gatekeeper.
The real problem is that it comes across to most people as a factual resource and anything in there is the truth or fact. It doesnt take a big leap to figure out how problematic this is.
Also, in regards to Hansen's speach. What part of, almost everything he predicted 20 years ago not coming true, is hard to see? It blows my mind that he has the nerve to come back 20yrs later and tells us to ignore the actual specifics of his case and just focus on the spirit of his message????



--------------------
Monsoon

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 3 2008, 05:41 PM
Post #14







Guests








Forbes.com, hmm, monsoon? The website of a magazine serving the financial services industry, I believe? Tell me, at this moment is there a less trusted segment of our society than the financial services industry?

The "enforcers" on the Wikipedia are climate scientists, interestingly enough. I agree that this is nothing like the good old days of print encylopedias when they would recruit a halibut fisherman to do the nuclear physics articles. Ahem.

Naturally the financial services industry might prefer that the public receive non-factual information so that investors won't worry about, you know, the future. That's kind of like what the bond rating agencies did, isn't it? I suppose truth is just another commodity as far as such people are concerned.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wxdude1964
post Jul 3 2008, 06:22 PM
Post #15




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 33,442
Joined: 16-March 08
From: Covington, VA
Member No.: 14,395





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 3 2008, 06:41 PM) *
Forbes.com, hmm, monsoon? The website of a magazine serving the financial services industry, I believe? Tell me, at this moment is there a less trusted segment of our society than the financial services industry?

The "enforcers" on the Wikipedia are climate scientists, interestingly enough. I agree that this is nothing like the good old days of print encylopedias when they would recruit a halibut fisherman to do the nuclear physics articles. Ahem.

Naturally the financial services industry might prefer that the public receive non-factual information so that investors won't worry about, you know, the future. That's kind of like what the bond rating agencies did, isn't it? I suppose truth is just another commodity as far as such people are concerned.


Steve, why do you immediately try to discredit or make fun of anything against your beliefs? Just curious.
Anyway to answer some of your questions and comments-

1) Only ones I can think of are Hansen and the UN
2) I'd say World Book, etc. have a bone to pick with you on that comment, BTW can you prove it?
3) Yes, truth. Sorta like what monsoonevans is saying about Wikipedia. That is why 95 percent of
the world ignores it, and if you refer back to something in it you usually need to put a * beside
it.

This post has been edited by wxdude1964: Jul 3 2008, 06:24 PM


--------------------
Snowfall 2007-2008 season-11.4 inches
Snowfall 2008-2009 season-13.1 inches
Snowfall 2009-2010 season-68.6 inches
Snowfall 2010-2011 season-19.5 inches
Snowfall 2011-2012 season-16.5 inches.
Snowfall 2012-2013 season-25.9 inches.
Snowfall 2013-2014 season-41.1 inches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 3 2008, 06:50 PM
Post #16







Guests








QUOTE(wxdude1964 @ Jul 3 2008, 04:22 PM) *
Steve, why do you immediately try to discredit or make fun of anything against your beliefs? Just curious.
Anyway to answer some of your questions and comments-

1) Only ones I can think of are Hansen and the UN
2) I'd say World Book, etc. have a bone to pick with you on that comment, BTW can you prove it?
3) Yes, truth. Sorta like what monsoonevans is saying about Wikipedia. That is why 95 percent of
the world ignores it, and if you refer back to something in it you usually need to put a * beside
it.


The better question would be why this site is so tolerant of people making things up. Are weather sites like fishing sites in that regard? One gets the impression of too many boys who read too many Ayn Rand novels.

Re your 3 points:

#1: That answer puts you very far out on the fringe, I'm afraid.

#2: Learn to recognize sarcasm. The point is that encyclopedia articles are written by recognized experts, not by non-experts with an axe to grind.

#3: See, there you go just making stuff up. Source for that 95% figure? I didn't think so.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wxdude1964
post Jul 3 2008, 07:36 PM
Post #17




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 33,442
Joined: 16-March 08
From: Covington, VA
Member No.: 14,395





QUOTE(Steve Bloom @ Jul 3 2008, 07:50 PM) *
The better question would be why this site is so tolerant of people making things up. Are weather sites like fishing sites in that regard? One gets the impression of too many boys who read too many Ayn Rand novels.

Re your 3 points:

#1: That answer puts you very far out on the fringe, I'm afraid.

#2: Learn to recognize sarcasm. The point is that encyclopedia articles are written by recognized experts, not by non-experts with an axe to grind.

#3: See, there you go just making stuff up. Source for that 95% figure? I didn't think so.


Steve,
I'm not going to get into a battle with you, I'm only interested in why you do the things I
listed in first post when someone disagrees with you. See, I guess I'm what you call a "watcher"
or a "lurker". Nienty nine percent of the time I just sit back and watch and read. You have a definite
pattern, and I'm just curious I guess. You don't have to answer if you don't wish.
About your last post-
I'm not sure why, maybe because the other locations (TWC comes to mind) started blocking posts
that went "against" their beliefs and people got tired of fighting and left? Maybe Accuweather
saw what happened there and doesn't want it to happen here? (JMO)
1) That is your opinion, and I respect that. However most people I know would disagree with you.
2) & 3) Oh, sarcasm, sorry. See- you tell a tale "days of print encylopdias when they would recruit
a halibut fisherman to do the nuclear physics articles. Ahem." And I tell a tale " why 95 percent of
the world ignores it." Both wrong, yours is sarcasm, mine is making things up. Explain.
BTW, I should have put in there only 90 percent (see I did fib, didn't I?) as I asked 10 co-workers
really quick if they'd use Wikipedia as a source- 9 giggled or laughed and one just stared at me.
I took that one as a yes.
Time to get back on topic before "moded" smile.gif

This post has been edited by wxdude1964: Jul 3 2008, 07:43 PM


--------------------
Snowfall 2007-2008 season-11.4 inches
Snowfall 2008-2009 season-13.1 inches
Snowfall 2009-2010 season-68.6 inches
Snowfall 2010-2011 season-19.5 inches
Snowfall 2011-2012 season-16.5 inches.
Snowfall 2012-2013 season-25.9 inches.
Snowfall 2013-2014 season-41.1 inches.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Goombah
post Jul 4 2008, 09:21 AM
Post #18




Rank: F5 Superstorm
***

Group: Member
Posts: 1,165
Joined: 15-February 08
Member No.: 13,725





[quote name='Steve Bloom' date='Jul 3 2008, 06:50 PM' post='171550']
The better question would be why this site is so tolerant of people making things up. Are weather sites like fishing sites in that regard? One gets the impression of too many boys who read too many Ayn Rand novels.

Re your 3 points:

#1: That answer puts you very far out on the fringe, I'm afraid.

#2: Learn to recognize sarcasm. The point is that encyclopedia articles are written by recognized experts, not by non-experts with an axe to grind.

#3: See, there you go just making stuff up. Source for that 95% figure? I didn't think so.



Ahh yes recognizing sarcasm! Like you did when I accused the steam from the coal power plants of causing the massive rains that came across Iowa. You recognized the heck out of that one!


--------------------
Accuweather Fantasy Football commish!

Owner of THE GOOMBAH!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 4 2008, 02:38 PM
Post #19







Guests








bdivito58, I would have recognized that statement alone as sarcasm. But remember that you also said this:

"These engines give off significantly more water vapor than CO2, which we know is not as strong of a GHG compared to the water vapor."

That sounded to me more like a fundamental misunderstanding than sarcasm, and made it plausible that you might actually believe your other remark (or that you made it in the hope that someone else would believe it).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Removed_Member_Steve Bloom_*
post Jul 4 2008, 02:49 PM
Post #20







Guests








Briefly, wxdude1964, it bothers me when people fail to distinguish between fact and fantasy regarding climate science. I think it's unhelpful to the planet and to the human race to let such folks have this forum to themselves.

Re some of your other comments, I think you lead a very insular existence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th November 2014 - 07:03 PM