Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%?
Really? $200M? Who told you this and is it in YOUR interests to swallow such an obvious distortion of the truth? Have you ever asked yourself why someone would broadcast this kind of propaganda, or do you simply accept what the media tells you without questioning the claims and motives of the speaker?
Disclaimer: I don't have a dog in your political fight, but 10,000 miles of ocean air is not enough to dissipate the nauseating smell bullshit from your media.
The smear campaigns these days are so blatant it's ridiculous.
The way it's played out in the media is very similar to the "A Dingo's got my baby" case here in Oz, it happened about 30yrs ago. Everyone (including me) "knew" she was guilty, it was obvious by her demeanour, she was "cold hearted", " matter of fact", "emotionless", etc. What very few people knew is the authorities had totally ignored their own aboriginal tracker who had told them a dingo had indeed dragged something away from the tent but he couldn't say what, or follow the track very far. Anyway, it was eventually sorted out after she had gone thru 5(?)yrs of hell for nothing more than a slightly unnerving personality. The experience of realising I had been an enthusiastic past of an angry mob is ultimately what made me realise how utterly uncivilised it was to allow the state to execute it's citizens under any circumstances other than preventing immediate harm to themselves or others (hostage situations, etc).
For anyone who is not clear on my point, count the number of comments to this story where the main arguments against Assange are that he has a disagreeable personality. In my book Assange is innocent until someone comes up with extraordinary evidence to support their extraordinary claims. Further more he has been totally co-operative with the police and courts in both countries and is lawfully applying to the full the very basic advice of any good lawyer - "Don't talk to the police!"
He's guilty of leaving the country after being instructed not to by the court, and he has been charged with such action....Want to get some facts...
Yes, I would like to get some facts, such as, where did you get that misinformation? - Seriously I want to know, tracing propaganda back to it's primary source can be very instructive.
The United Nations is not an organization that has the best interests of the United States at its core.
And nor should it be, it should have the best interests of all it's members at it's core, which means that it is inevitable no member will get all their own way all the time, regardless of the size of their dick or their wallet.
It includes many members would would love to damage the USA in anyway possible.
It also includes many members that the USA has, or would like to, damage. That's the whole point; "war is the failure of politics", the cold war shows that it is essential to keep talking to your political enemies, even if it is through gritted teeth with nukes pointed at each others heads.
It's sort of like the Berlin wall, very few western leaders wanted it to come down and pressured the East to prevent it, as soon as it fell they furiously back peddled in an attempt to take the credit (or at least try to make it look as if that's what they had wanted all along).
Yeah two can play that game, eg: The elected government of Israel routinely fires missiles indiscriminately into civilian population centers that it has kept under siege conditions for decades. That may not be terrorism (though it is certainly terrifying to the victims), but it is illegal according to international law. Funny how no one ever takes them to task for it in the media.
The US used to fund 1/2 the UN, so either other nations have stepped up or the US has already cut it's funding, either way the UN is more influential now than it has ever been. Note that the UN is a lot more than shelved security council resolutions, much of it is either charity (UNICEF, UN food program, etc)., or logistics for other charity organisations (WHO, UN peacekeeping, etc). If you want to improve the UN the best way to do it would be to revoke the special veto powers given to the winners of WW2, the blind support of Israel by the west and Syria by the East would be much harder to maintain.
I find it too bizarre for words that you would give equal (let alone more) weight to a daily fail interview of the know "badmouther" Curry (who has never been published in Nature or Science) than you do to the first hand writings of an entire group of respected climate scientist who are at the top of their field with an impressive list of publications in Nature and Science. But that's the nature of denial, ignore all contra evidence so your faith can be preserved.
water has a giant "peak" that obliterates everything
That is a very old but sadly* incorrect argument. Between ~1900 and 1950 the mainstream scientific argument against global warming (first proposed in 1896) was that water vapour and H20 absorption spectra overlapped and cancelled each other out (water's giant peak). To be fair the equipment of the day showed one blurry "spike" for both substances at the same place. For 50yrs your argument was considered the final nail in the coffin of AGW and very few scientists were willing to open the coffin and check the theory was really dead.
However better equipment in the 1950's, (from the development of heat seeking missiles), showed that the spectral spikes do not actually overlap but rather interleave like two picket fences, meaning the absorption spectra of the two gasses are independent of each other. The modern version of Fourier's original 1824 formula that gives the radiative flux for a change in CO2 concentration is RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1). This works out as a forcing of +3.71 w/m^2 (1.41degC) for a doubling of CO2, however you need a supercomputer to simulate what feedbacks this will cause and how much said feedbacks dampen or amplify the forcing. Computer models and the geological record of past changes have since the mid-1970's put that total forcing + feedback figure (called climate sensitivity) at ~3degC.
As for H2O it definitely is the most significant GHG in terms of the amount of heat trapped by our current atmosphere. However the atmosphere is saturated with H20 and the only way to the change the global proportion of H20 is to change the global temperature or pressure. In other words H20 is a only ever a feedback, it increases or decreases as a response to a +/- forcing thus amplifying the forcing in the direction of it's +/- sign. CO2 does not have a saturation point in the atmosphere (it does in the ocean), it can be both a forcing (industrial emission) or a feedback (milankovich cycles). The current warming due to the +ve forcing of CO2 is estimated to have increased water vapour by about 4% since 1970.
Understanding of physical chemistry is sadly lacking among AGW proponents
This may be true of laymen such as myself, it is certainly not true of the physicists, chemists, and geologists who make up the bulk of the worlds climate scientists, many of whom would have a better understanding than you do.
*Sadly - because I would much rather AGW was scam than something real.
However, are YOU saying that just because these numbers were listed by him, that they are wrong? An ad hominem argument?
1. Yes. 2. No, it's a rational prediction based on his track record.
I will thank you to look at the references contained on that page and show that THEY are wrong.
I can throw a thousand links at you and it won't change your mind, however if you would just practice a little self scepticism and google debunk Inhofe for yourself, you might be able to eventually extract yourself from the anti-science cult you find yourself supporting.
You're wasting your time posting tabloid rumours from the daily fail at me. Go over to realclimate and read the actual article by Gavin Schmidt. Muller was never on the realclimate bus so they can hardly be accused of throwing him under it, although they did laugh and say "We told you so" while his colleges ran him over
We tried giving everyone a cheap home - that backfired and we're left with more homeless and struggling.
Plenty of other nations provide "free" or heavily subsidised tertiary education. Why does the US have to re-invent the wheel to solve a problem that was solved elsewhere decades ago? If a country such as Australia with a piddling 20M population can give it's students a subsidised degree with less that $10K of the cost coming directly from the student then why can't the almighty US get it's shit together and do something similar?
The most important and most difficult part of the art of scepticism is self-scepticisim. Do yourself a favour, take your post and attempt to debunk it yourself, look at the criticisms of the Petition Project for starters. I don't know you from swiss cheese, but I know Inhofe is playing you like the devil plays a fiddle.
You keep going on about pro and anti research like it can persist outside it's natural habitat of the think-tank, grant panels take the opinion that if you know the answer up front, it's not research. Your basic assumption that Inhofe is telling you the truth about how grants are allocated is where you're falling down.
Virtually every coal plant on this planet did not exist when I was born. There's no technical or economic reason that they could not all be replaced at their end of life with renewables, a global moratorium on new coal plants would have the job done in under 50yrs. Like all the other massive infrastructure that's come and gone over a middle-aged lifetime, you probably wouldn't notice the change to renewables happening.
Nicotine is not addictive. The same PR firms that provided "skeptics" to those assholes are now supplying "skeptics" to the FF industry, there are around 50 such groups in the US, a prime example being the "Heartland institute", for some reason the offices of these PR groups are all heavily clustered around K street.
I would be very interested to see a refutation of the idea that grant money has in fact been spent preferentially for pro-global-warming ideas.
WTF does "pro-global-warming idea" even mean in the scientific sense? Also read how the grant system works from the perspective of someone who has actually sat on them.
With this subject you bring it onto yourself by posting stuff that has long been debunked, or tired old memes that highlight your lack of knowledge of the subject. The reason AGW is predicted to increase droughts is self evident if you understand how the Hadley cells work and how they will react to additional heat and water vapour.
But I doubt any of that is the reason for the mod, I'm pretty sure that was for the tabloid style attack on Trenberth's character at the end of your post.
Slashdot Mirror
"People are stupid" always strikes me as a stupid rationale for why the world doesn't work like the stupid speaker wants it to.
Is it in our interest to have Obama spend 200,000,000+ on a flight vacation to Hawaii while joblessness is above 9%?
Really? $200M? Who told you this and is it in YOUR interests to swallow such an obvious distortion of the truth? Have you ever asked yourself why someone would broadcast this kind of propaganda, or do you simply accept what the media tells you without questioning the claims and motives of the speaker?
Disclaimer: I don't have a dog in your political fight, but 10,000 miles of ocean air is not enough to dissipate the nauseating smell bullshit from your media.
despite the fact that according to you they have bowed to the whim of the US multiple times in the past?
C'mon, Blair was Bush's bitch, and Thatcher had a crush on Reagan.
The smear campaigns these days are so blatant it's ridiculous.
The way it's played out in the media is very similar to the "A Dingo's got my baby" case here in Oz, it happened about 30yrs ago. Everyone (including me) "knew" she was guilty, it was obvious by her demeanour, she was "cold hearted", " matter of fact", "emotionless", etc. What very few people knew is the authorities had totally ignored their own aboriginal tracker who had told them a dingo had indeed dragged something away from the tent but he couldn't say what, or follow the track very far. Anyway, it was eventually sorted out after she had gone thru 5(?)yrs of hell for nothing more than a slightly unnerving personality. The experience of realising I had been an enthusiastic past of an angry mob is ultimately what made me realise how utterly uncivilised it was to allow the state to execute it's citizens under any circumstances other than preventing immediate harm to themselves or others (hostage situations, etc).
For anyone who is not clear on my point, count the number of comments to this story where the main arguments against Assange are that he has a disagreeable personality. In my book Assange is innocent until someone comes up with extraordinary evidence to support their extraordinary claims. Further more he has been totally co-operative with the police and courts in both countries and is lawfully applying to the full the very basic advice of any good lawyer - "Don't talk to the police!"
He's guilty of leaving the country after being instructed not to by the court, and he has been charged with such action....Want to get some facts...
Yes, I would like to get some facts, such as, where did you get that misinformation? - Seriously I want to know, tracing propaganda back to it's primary source can be very instructive.
The United Nations is not an organization that has the best interests of the United States at its core.
And nor should it be, it should have the best interests of all it's members at it's core, which means that it is inevitable no member will get all their own way all the time, regardless of the size of their dick or their wallet.
It includes many members would would love to damage the USA in anyway possible.
It also includes many members that the USA has, or would like to, damage. That's the whole point; "war is the failure of politics", the cold war shows that it is essential to keep talking to your political enemies, even if it is through gritted teeth with nukes pointed at each others heads.
It's sort of like the Berlin wall, very few western leaders wanted it to come down and pressured the East to prevent it, as soon as it fell they furiously back peddled in an attempt to take the credit (or at least try to make it look as if that's what they had wanted all along).
Yeah two can play that game, eg: The elected government of Israel routinely fires missiles indiscriminately into civilian population centers that it has kept under siege conditions for decades. That may not be terrorism (though it is certainly terrifying to the victims), but it is illegal according to international law. Funny how no one ever takes them to task for it in the media.
The US used to fund 1/2 the UN, so either other nations have stepped up or the US has already cut it's funding, either way the UN is more influential now than it has ever been. Note that the UN is a lot more than shelved security council resolutions, much of it is either charity (UNICEF, UN food program, etc)., or logistics for other charity organisations (WHO, UN peacekeeping, etc). If you want to improve the UN the best way to do it would be to revoke the special veto powers given to the winners of WW2, the blind support of Israel by the west and Syria by the East would be much harder to maintain.
I find it too bizarre for words that you would give equal (let alone more) weight to a daily fail interview of the know "badmouther" Curry (who has never been published in Nature or Science) than you do to the first hand writings of an entire group of respected climate scientist who are at the top of their field with an impressive list of publications in Nature and Science. But that's the nature of denial, ignore all contra evidence so your faith can be preserved.
water has a giant "peak" that obliterates everything
That is a very old but sadly* incorrect argument. Between ~1900 and 1950 the mainstream scientific argument against global warming (first proposed in 1896) was that water vapour and H20 absorption spectra overlapped and cancelled each other out (water's giant peak). To be fair the equipment of the day showed one blurry "spike" for both substances at the same place. For 50yrs your argument was considered the final nail in the coffin of AGW and very few scientists were willing to open the coffin and check the theory was really dead.
However better equipment in the 1950's, (from the development of heat seeking missiles), showed that the spectral spikes do not actually overlap but rather interleave like two picket fences, meaning the absorption spectra of the two gasses are independent of each other. The modern version of Fourier's original 1824 formula that gives the radiative flux for a change in CO2 concentration is RF = 5.35*ln(C2/C1). This works out as a forcing of +3.71 w/m^2 (1.41degC) for a doubling of CO2, however you need a supercomputer to simulate what feedbacks this will cause and how much said feedbacks dampen or amplify the forcing. Computer models and the geological record of past changes have since the mid-1970's put that total forcing + feedback figure (called climate sensitivity) at ~3degC.
As for H2O it definitely is the most significant GHG in terms of the amount of heat trapped by our current atmosphere. However the atmosphere is saturated with H20 and the only way to the change the global proportion of H20 is to change the global temperature or pressure. In other words H20 is a only ever a feedback, it increases or decreases as a response to a +/- forcing thus amplifying the forcing in the direction of it's +/- sign. CO2 does not have a saturation point in the atmosphere (it does in the ocean), it can be both a forcing (industrial emission) or a feedback (milankovich cycles). The current warming due to the +ve forcing of CO2 is estimated to have increased water vapour by about 4% since 1970.
Understanding of physical chemistry is sadly lacking among AGW proponents
This may be true of laymen such as myself, it is certainly not true of the physicists, chemists, and geologists who make up the bulk of the worlds climate scientists, many of whom would have a better understanding than you do.
*Sadly - because I would much rather AGW was scam than something real.
I love watching you rationalise your irrationality, your very good at it.
However, are YOU saying that just because these numbers were listed by him, that they are wrong? An ad hominem argument?
1. Yes. 2. No, it's a rational prediction based on his track record.
I will thank you to look at the references contained on that page and show that THEY are wrong.
I can throw a thousand links at you and it won't change your mind, however if you would just practice a little self scepticism and google debunk Inhofe for yourself, you might be able to eventually extract yourself from the anti-science cult you find yourself supporting.
You're wasting your time posting tabloid rumours from the daily fail at me. Go over to realclimate and read the actual article by Gavin Schmidt. Muller was never on the realclimate bus so they can hardly be accused of throwing him under it, although they did laugh and say "We told you so" while his colleges ran him over
We tried giving everyone a cheap home - that backfired and we're left with more homeless and struggling.
Plenty of other nations provide "free" or heavily subsidised tertiary education. Why does the US have to re-invent the wheel to solve a problem that was solved elsewhere decades ago? If a country such as Australia with a piddling 20M population can give it's students a subsidised degree with less that $10K of the cost coming directly from the student then why can't the almighty US get it's shit together and do something similar?
It is a simple system, and we don't have any systemic problems with it, however the part in the Aussie system where the government caps the maximum student contribution to under $10K is not going to happen in the US.
The most important and most difficult part of the art of scepticism is self-scepticisim. Do yourself a favour, take your post and attempt to debunk it yourself, look at the criticisms of the Petition Project for starters. I don't know you from swiss cheese, but I know Inhofe is playing you like the devil plays a fiddle.
You keep going on about pro and anti research like it can persist outside it's natural habitat of the think-tank, grant panels take the opinion that if you know the answer up front, it's not research. Your basic assumption that Inhofe is telling you the truth about how grants are allocated is where you're falling down.
Oh for fuck's sake, you accuse a respected scientist of lying and now Inhofe is your "last word" reference, seriously? - Just how naive are you?
Virtually every coal plant on this planet did not exist when I was born. There's no technical or economic reason that they could not all be replaced at their end of life with renewables, a global moratorium on new coal plants would have the job done in under 50yrs. Like all the other massive infrastructure that's come and gone over a middle-aged lifetime, you probably wouldn't notice the change to renewables happening.
Nicotine is not addictive. The same PR firms that provided "skeptics" to those assholes are now supplying "skeptics" to the FF industry, there are around 50 such groups in the US, a prime example being the "Heartland institute", for some reason the offices of these PR groups are all heavily clustered around K street.
I would be very interested to see a refutation of the idea that grant money has in fact been spent preferentially for pro-global-warming ideas.
WTF does "pro-global-warming idea" even mean in the scientific sense? Also read how the grant system works from the perspective of someone who has actually sat on them.
what's not to like?
The waiting time for half frozen slush to become fertile pasture.
With this subject you bring it onto yourself by posting stuff that has long been debunked, or tired old memes that highlight your lack of knowledge of the subject. The reason AGW is predicted to increase droughts is self evident if you understand how the Hadley cells work and how they will react to additional heat and water vapour.
But I doubt any of that is the reason for the mod, I'm pretty sure that was for the tabloid style attack on Trenberth's character at the end of your post.
Never coming to a conclusion means you can't be wrong, unless of course it's wrong to never come to a conclusion.