RRC Archives

L K Day wrote:

Alan Evil wrote:

There are billions of data points that prove the earth's climate is changing more rapidly than it ever has. There is no politics in this.

I think you're too smart to believe what you are saying, even for a second. Why would you say something that you know to be false? Because it fits your politics.

On the "data points". Thanks to the action of at least one whistleblower inside the climate research community, it is now widely known that Climate Changers have engaged in considerable fraud while promoting their desired conclusions. Check out the linked, rather dry, report. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... 025294.php Few doubt that the earth has been getting warmer. But is this really caused by man, and should we burden society with incredible costs in pursuit of a "solution" that decreases CO2 emissions by a rather insignificant amount?

And welcome back, hi as ever.

Let me put this simply: We have a climate history that goes back hundreds of thousands of years. The farther back in time we go, the more sparse the data is. That means the nearer we get to the present the more data we have. In addition to improved collection in the present we have also found more ways to expand and improve the data we have from the past be it sediment cores from the bottoms of ancient lakes, tree rings linked back from the present to ancient lumber used in construction, ice cores from new areas, etc. These are literally billions of points of data and they all agree that what is happening right now is unprecedented. The level of CO2 is increasing at thousands of times the speed it has at any time in the past and it's pretty easy to find the source of that CO2: us.

There is no "considerable fraud." The supposedly scandalous e-mails are a) taken out of context and b) make perfect sense if read by a rational person. You, Mr. Day, have not read these e-mails, you have only read an extremely biased interpretation of them. What the vast majority (and not the Republican version of vast majority but an actual majority) of knowledgeable people agree on is these scientists were under attack from liars and fools and they felt they had to fight back where they could.

If you have ever worked in statistics or with advanced mathematics you would know that when someone uses a "trick" to emphasize a stream of data, this is no more fraudulent than using a red filter to make a certain type of plant stand out in a picture or using an equalizer to bring out a voice in a recording. The entire e-mail-gate is made up bullshit.

But you people know nothing about science or how it works. There are literally tens of millions of scientists all trying to find things wrong with their work and others' work. Climate study is a huge area and includes dozens of different areas of science from meteorology to fluid dynamics. There are tens of thousands of labs, data collection points, satellites, observers, diaries, and explorers examining all the evidence and despite what you say, they all agree that humans are changing the world. ALL OF THEM. There are a few dozen non-scientists that make a lot of noise to the contrary. THEY DON'T COUNT. Sen. Imhoff is a fucking idiot, not a scientist. Rush Limbaugh is also a fucking idiot, not a scientist. You can dig up a couple of PHD's that deny the facts they are presented with but you can also find a couple of PHD's that believe the world is 6000 years old. Only an idiot would listen to idiots.

The people that sponsor the climate denial conspiracy foolishness have an agenda which is to maintain the status quo so they can continue to make huge amounts of money without having to think about changing. Their agenda does not involve the future conditions of our world, it does not involve clean air for our children, it does not involve preventing hundreds of millions of people living on coasts being forced to move, it does not involve preventing massive starvation and deprivation. Their agenda involves making as much money as possible while spending as little as possible.

This is why I don't argue this with you, Day. You're a fool. Your arguments are specious and have no basis in fact. You rely on the bullshit fed you by the right wing noise machine which also has no relationship with actual fact and if something doesn't fit in your belief system you dismiss it despite the fact you could see it with your own eyes. There are glaciers in South America that have ice tens of thousands of years old that will vanish soon. Glacier Nat'l Monument will soon have no glaciers in a place that has had glaciers for over 100,000 years. The ice at the north pole has melted during summer in the last few years, something which probably hasn't happened since there were dinosaurs. The permafrost is melting in norther Canada and Russia, ground that has been frozen since before humans stood upright. The oceans are rising. These are simple facts but as you've decided your goose stepping rightwing leaders have it all right you'll ignore these facts.

Why do you think all the pines died in the Red over the last half a decade? It's because of climate change. The winters are a little bit shorter and a little less cold, just enough that the pine bore beetles don't die in the cold. Did you not notice that all the pines died? Or do you want to blame that on people recycling and bicycling to work?

I think I know what you think about the natural world. I've found your deeply engraved graffiti scratched into the rocks of the RRG. If you've spent your whole life marking where you've been like a dog pissing on trees you probably think little of the world around you. It would be inconvenient for you to admit you're part of the problem so you'll deny you have any impact.

p.s. The reason I haven't been around much is because I've limited my "social" internet time to about an hour an a half maximum per day. I get more done in the meat world as a result. I will try to stop by here more regularly to show you how fucked up and stupid you are (talking to all you fucking morons).

at least it will be interesting again.

no doubt...welcome back..I miss the angry frothing at the mouth hateful alan...hopefully this won't raise his blood pressure. I was going to slow down on here this year as well, but with alan back I may just stay around...

oh yeah, mr. evil...you said mr. day had not read those emails in their entirety, but that must mean you have since you seem to know they are taken out of context. could you please post the link where we may all read them in their entirety? thank you in advance.

Alan,
A great deal of what you said you said above is completely wrong. Whether you know it or not, I don't care. But you've never found any graffiti that I placed on any rocks in the Gorge, or anyplace else for that matter, because I've never left any graffiti anywhere, you lying sack of shit. I placed three drilled anchors in all the years I climbed in the Gorge, beyond that I didn't even use chalk. I actively fought to save the Gorge from being dammed, which I'm pretty sure is a hell of a lot more than you've ever done for the place that we all love, you slandering piece of crap.

forgive him larry..it is typical alan BS.....plus, if he has ever climbed a single sport route at the Red, or lowered from bolted anchors at the Red, then he is the biggest blowhard, hypocrite of all....the rock we destroy placing a single bolt is more than any scratched initials....

you want to save the Red, mr evil, quit climbing...o wait, you did.

Alan Evil wrote:p.s. The reason I haven't been around much is because I've limited my "social" internet time to about an hour an a half maximum per day. I get more done in the meat world as a result. I will try to stop by here more regularly to show you how fucked up and stupid you are (talking to all you fucking morons).

this really made me lol.

threads like this and the Racism thread don't make me mad so much as they make me want to post bibliographies.

l2read

-t

I like how Alan spends his precious time writing a long, seemingly well thought out post, and then immediately after establishes himself as a fool by launching a baseless personal attack on Larry. That is what the left has always done - never debate the merits of a topic but attack those whom they disagree with personally. Threatening scientists who disagree on climate science is just part of their playbook.

And I see one of you libs has given me a new title. Fine with me - Larry and I will take good care of Ann and Sarah, you all can keep Gore and Obama running on empty

[quote]

Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis of worldwide temperature measurements, but it was still in the top ten warmest years since the start of record-keeping in 1880. Given the range of uncertainty in the measurements, the GISS team concluded that 2008 was somewhere between the seventh and the tenth warmest year on record. (The 10 warmest years have all occurred within the 12-year period from 1997-2008.)

The map above shows global temperature anomalies in 2008 compared to the 1950-1980 baseline period. Below-average temperatures are shown in blue, average temperatures are white, and above-average temperatures are red. (Gray indicates no data.) Most of the world was either near normal or warmer than normal. Eastern Europe, Russia, the Arctic, and the Antarctic Peninsula were exceptionally warm (1.5 to 3.5 degrees Celsius above average). The temperature in the United States in 2008 was not much different than the 1951-1980 mean, which makes 2008 cooler than all of the previous years this decade. Large areas of the central and eastern Pacific Ocean were cooler than the long-term average, linked to a La Niña episode that began in 2007.

The graph shows the long-term trend in surface temperatures since 1880. The annual average temperatures are shown in light orange, and the jaggedness of the line indicates how much the average global surface temperature varies from year to year. Because climate is so variable form year to year, it can be easier to spot long-term trends through multi-year averages. The dark red line shows the five-year running average, which is an average of five years of annual temperatures centered on a given year. Even this five-year average shows that climate has ups and downs, but the long-term increase in global average surface temperatures is obvious. The gray “barbellsâ€