I know you were trying to be tongue-in-cheek but increased CO2 levels are not going to have much effect on the thermosphere to the level that they're seeing. Sure, a higher greenhouse content in the troposphere will have some impact due to successive cooling of the higher atmospheric layers, but there is hardly any atmosphere at those levels anyway. In addition, the change they saw was year over while global warming takes place over decades.
Unless the warming caused some sort of critical level to be reached (possible, but unlikely), I doubt this has much to do with increased CO2 content in the troposphere. Whoever wrote the article tried REALLY hard to link it to increased CO2 levels, but that's ludicrous. The CO2 in the troposphere does not migrate to the thermosphere, at least not in any reasonable time frame to match the observations.
Is that a real post? This must be just fantasy. Caught in a thread flood No escape from the trolling spree
Open your browser The trolls getting louder, please
I'm just a poor troll (Poor troll), I need no sympathy Because I'm easy come, easy go Little high, little low Any way the thread goes Doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Mama, just killed a thread Posted a picture of Hitler's Head Godwined it and now it's dead Mama, the thread had just begun But now I've gone and thrown it all away Mama, ooh I want to make it die If it's not locked tight by this time tomorrow Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters
Too late, this thread is done Sends electrons down my line Brain is aching all the time Goodbye, everybody The thread has got to go The troll will leave you all behind 'cuz it's a douche Mama, oooooooh (Anyway the thread goes) This thread don't wanna die Sometimes wish it'd never been born at all
[Guitar Solo]
I see a little silhouetto of a troll Meta-whoosh, Meta-whoosh, he didn't get it at all Politics, Religion, can't believe I fed him! Sheesh! (Hitler Stalin) Obama Palin (Global Warming) I'm Just Sayin', Do not feed the little troll! Magnifico-o-o-o-o I'm just a poor troll nobody loves me He's just a poor troll check his facebook page and see He's made this thread into another travesty
Easy come, easy go, will you let me troll? Bismillah! No, we will not let you troll Let him troll Bismillah! We will not let you troll Let him troll Bismillah! We will not let you troll Let me troll (Will not let you troll) Let me troll (Will not let you troll) (Never, never, never, never) Let me troll, o, o, o, o No, no, no, no, no, no, no (Oh mama mia, mama mia) Mama Mia, let me troll The Sysadmin has a banning put aside for me, for me, for me!
So you think you can troll me and spit in my eye So you think you can troll me and leave me to die Oh, douchebag, can't do this to me, douchebag You just get out, just gotta get right outta here
[Guitar Solo] (Oooh yeah, Oooh yeah)
Trolls don't really matter Anyone can see Trolls don't really matter Trolls don't really matter to me
They're all using the exact same data. Why would you expect their results to be different from each other? The weight of paper is meaningless.
No they are not. GISS has it's own data set. WRF has it's own data set. GEOS has it's own data set. So on and so forth. They may share data sets. They may even reprocess data to conform to the model input requirements, but there is a HUGE amount of data provided by multiple sources.
You have no idea what I do or do not know about this issue.
On the contrary, your blanket statements discrediting the sum total of climate research based on your own perceptions is pretty telling.
With respect to their research, I think "quality" is not really the word I would use in the same sentence. You seem to turn a blind eye to the lack of verifiability caused by shoddy data archiving practises.
You are making a very large assumption that every institution that performs climate science follows the same practices, which is incorrect. For example, all of NASA's climate research data is stored onto multiply redundant tape storage. There are data sets going back decades. Same with NOAA's.
You also turn a blind eye to people like Wegman - experts in statistics - who roundly criticised practices in the field.
Peer-reviewed article please. Anyone can criticize but if that critique does not hold under investigation then it is useless.
It might also be the case where someone who doesn't understand the domain is trying to apply what they know to analyze it.
That rather depends on who is doing the reviewing. As we know from the emails, papers are sent to "sympathetic" reviewers.
No, they aren't. You're making shit up. The papers mentioned in the email were published regardless of the feelings of CRU scientists. Scientists don't get to say who reviews what papers. That's up to the research periodical.
Again, you're bringing up the same tired "it's a global conspiracy" crap that simply makes no sense and doesn't hold water.
On the whole I think your faith in the climate scientists is touching, if naive.
Faith? Faith has nothing to do with it. I look at the research and the science. The factual evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence is very clear. At this point, there has been no legitimate, peer reviewed set of research that discounts the current research results. Until that changes or until a REAL climategate happens, then I am siding with the science.
So your implying that Gavin is a dishonest swindler? And your proof of this would be what? What is your evidence that discredits the research he's done? Where is your proof that the articles he posts on realclimate are worthless and have no merit?
It's very easy to make baseless accusations. Fortunately, it takes more than an irrational/emotional rant to prove someone of misconduct.
However, if you have irrefutable evidence of such, then by all means send it to the appropriate authorities.
You know, I could post links showing how you are utterly and completely wrong on every count. I could show you solid science and solid research in each case. However, I don't think that will make a lick of difference in GNT land.
Continue along in your ignorance. I have better things to do.
In your post above, what's missing is the bit where you explain what was wrong with Steve McIntyre's analysis.
I don't need to. Others have done it for me. Except those others happen to be climate scientists, so I guess that doesn't count.
Because although you delight in the ad-hominem against him, you will note that his criticisms are hard to dispute, particularly the excellent work he did on Briffa and the Yamal series.
And at the end there is even a convenient link to a published peer reviewed research article refuting the claims.
The problem here is that none of the inquires bothered to interview those in a position to "verify" the claims. Indeed, I don't believe any of them even asked McIntyre for a statement, even though he was the subject of a lot of the bile in the emails.
And what claims would those be exactly? And why would thy ask McIntyre for a statement? Unlike the jackass who dumped their mail server and selected only the emails that he/she/it wanted to show, the investigators had access to all of them, plus whatever else they wanted.
You obey the law and honour the request. Your ego is not a higher authority on these matters, unless you're as arrogant and self-regarding as the Climate-Gate clique and their supporters
I never said he made the right decision. People hold up that quote and turn him into the "Evil Climate Conspiracy Monster". He had his reasons for doing what he did, and it had a lot more to do with the feeling being unnecessarily harassed than "hiding the data".
If your data, methods and claims are water-tight, you've got nothing to worry about.
Oh my. You are so naive.
It took years of fighting before anything was done about smoking. It took years of fighting before anything was done about acid rain. It took years of fighting before anything was done about CFCs and the ozone hole. In all cases there was "water-tight" research (and lot's of it) showing that bad shit was happening. But that doesn't matter when you have a billion dollar PR machine on your side. You don't even need to refute the research. All you need to do is plant a little seed of doubt and all that water-tight science won't mean jack shit in front of the public or congress.
You can't show research proving that something a multi-billion dollar conglomerate is doing is bad and expect your research to be the end of the discussion. They will attack you, drag you through the mud, crucify you, and leave you to the crows.
If they're cobbled together from poorly documented, poorly maintained, part-deleted data, with dubious analysis, as was the case here, then the claims *you* are making, upon which trillions of dollars depend, should not be taken seriously.
How many times does this need to be repeated? CRU != Climate Science Community. It doesn't. Nobody is making a trillion dollar decision based soley on the research done by CRU. No one. Really.
However, when you have thousands of climate scientists from every major national research group on the planet all reporting research that indicates the same thing, maybe, just maybe, people should take notice.
Even if CRU falsified EVERYTHING, there's still thousands upon thousands of research papers out there all showing the same damn thing.
You're also making a lot of claims in regards to the quality of their research, which really you don't seem to know much about. You don't get published in research journals by putting a pile a crap together and sending it in. You won't even make it past the initial review.
Climate science, like any other science branch, is highly competitive. If you send in some POS paper other researchers will be m
Let's say you've been doing research on something for 20-30 years. Now some asshole who has little in the way of knowledge or experience in the field comes along and starts screaming across the net that your research is a pile of crap. He shows a lack of understanding of the science, continuously posts incorrect or skewed facts, and encourages an environment that's openly hostile towards your research. Said asshole then comes along and DEMANDS that you give him all your research and data.
Now seeing the way said asshole has manipulated and incorrectly used data in the past to "prove" his naive and fallacious hypotheses, and his past hostile tendencies towards your research, what do you do about the request?
A) Give him what he wants, knowing full well that your research will be deliberately misused and distorted. Except now, it will be YOUR NAME giving "credibility" to his bullshit since it was the data YOU USED to conduct your research. B) Tell him to fuck off because you have better things to do with your time than to placate a hostile, ignorant asshole with delusions of grandeur.
Phil eventually chose option B. Perhaps not the best option in hindsight, but either way he would have been screwed.
None of the people who asked for the data were amateurs.
Bullshit. Steve McIntyre is NOT a climatologist, and neither is Anthony Watts. However they're practically the cheerleaders for the mad dog skeptic movement. Factions of the Tea Party movement practically worship the electrons they transmit their blogs through. They're not the only ones either. Now it's gotten to the point where researches who should be, you know, researching have to spend enormous amounts of their time dealing with the growing deluge of FOIA requests.
The sad part is, absolutely everything could be made 100% open and free and you would STILL have people like McIntyre and Watts claiming a world wide conspiracy.
This has never been about "openness". It's not about the quality of research. It's not about modeling errors, statistical analysis, weather station locations, or anything else. This has been, and will continue to be, about a concerted effort to undermine scientific research and results to maintain or increase profitable gain. Conspiracy? Hardly. Perhaps if this hadn't happened before, then one could call it a conspiracy. But it has. Several times. Anyone who remembers the "controversies" over acid rain, ozone depletion through CFCs, or smoking knows exactly how a well funded, well-oiled FUD machine can destroy even the best scientific research.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It's not the noise so much as the heat. Turbine exhaust is much hotter than normal exhaust. You wouldn't want to be in NYC on a hot summer day surrounded by turbine based cars. Urban heat island wouldn't begin to describe it.
Of course, in order to reach high efficiencies you have to handle the waste heat in a meaningful way (otherwise it isn't very efficient). That can be tricky inside the frame of a car.
The WG2 section was specifically made to include "gray data" from sources OTHER THAN pure scientific research. It was meant as an aggregate for other sources of information, and it even says so. You might think of it as "anecdotal", and should be treated as such.
If you're looking for scientifically validated information, you DO NOT look in WG2.
I suppose it is there for completeness, but I think it would be much better if they just left it out entirely.
Stop climate change? Sorry, but that ship has sailed.
Even if we stop all CO2 production, warming would continue. The environment has not caught up to what we have done so far, and most likely won't for a few decade.
The typical starting amount for CO2 concentrations is 280-290 PPM, and right now we're around 390 PPM. In order to get back down to even 1990 levels, we'd have to get rid of around 50 PPM from the atmosphere. There is no technology in existence that can do this in any reasonable time frame.
So no, at this point there isn't much we can do to stop it. We can prepare for it, and take steps to mitigate further climate change, but there's nothing we can do to stop it at this point.
Look, I'm not going to wast my time arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. It's not worth my time. There are an incredible amount of books, research articles, etc. that cover the topics. If you are unwilling to even make the most basic effort to understand what you're talking about, you aren't a rational skeptic or any kind of skeptic. Your just another torch-and-pitchfork, burn-the-witch ignoramus.
You want some sources? You can't figure out to use google? Here's a good book on the subject:
This is a free (as in beer) introduction into the rudimentary concepts. Or you can start with simple zero dimension energy balance models such as this one:
And work your way up from there. Or if these are too advanced for you, you can start out with just about any introductory college level physics book that covers basic atmosphere and thermodynamics principles.
Or, if you're one of the climate science conspiracy nuts and you don't trust any materials related to climate science, then you can start with a good book on meteorology like this one:
This should at least dispel your erroneous assumptions and reasoning from your earlier post.
I ENCOURAGE rational skepticism. It adds to a discussion. It makes people think in different ways. IT IS A GOOD THING.
I DO NOT encourage blatant willful ignorance, which is what you are demonstrating. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is a general waste of time for both skeptics and supporters.
If you are unwilling to expend the effort to truly educate yourself (and it seems like you are), then there is nothing further to discuss.
This still doesn't change the fact that the AGW argument is supported by insufficient evidence and flawed computer models.
I assume you have the peer reviewed research and a full verified dissection of the computer models and flaws to back up this statement. What? You don't? Well how about something refuting the decades, actually over a century of climate research to the point that renders all current research invalid. You don't? The you must be a climatologist or performing doctorate level research in a related field that shows categorically that current research is all flawed. You aren't?
Why am I not surprised. I can play the make believe game too. I can make believe that I am the world's premiere heart surgeon and declare that all doctors R DOIN IT RONG. Then I can post as proof a link to blog that may or may not be written by me or some half-baked scammer with proof that I am a l33t super doctor.
But you know what? No matter how much I repeat that I'm am a super doctor, it doesn't make it true. No matter how many research articles I hold up and poke imaginary holes in, that doesn't mean I can perform a bypass operation. Basically, any idiot can make any claim they want. If it isn't peer-reviewed and backed up the expert community then it doesn't mean jack shit.
There are legitimate skeptics out there, but none of them make the same idiotic claims you do.
Much of North America and Europe used to be covered in glaciers, and they were gone before man existed.
Actually, man existed when there were giant glaciers. We weren't very populous then and at one point almost went extinct. That being said, this has little relevance.
GW was happening long before fossil fuels were dug out of the ground. There's actual hard evidence of this.
Yeah, and your still missing the point. We have grown heavily dependent on our climate to survive. That climate is changing. There will be consequences.
AGW is a scam to guilt people into spending money on "Green" technology utilizing a naturally occurring phenomena that was already in full swing before man existed.
And this is modded insightful? Really slashdot?
So let's see if I can follow this conspiracy. First, it has to be worldwide right? Ok, we got a bunch of climate scientists going over the evil plan to create a massive scientific fraud. First, they "guilt" everyone into buying green technology. Then...what? Exactly how does buying green technology bring the scientists evil plan into fruition? What evil purpose is fulfilled by getting the world to unwittingly buy green technology?
Money? Almost all client research is funded by government grants and universities (and it really isn't much). So how does buying green technology get money into scientists pockets? Perhaps it's power then. But what power do scientists get from having people buy green technologies?
Perhaps I'm just not being fucking insane enough. Maybe the government will embed mind control devices inside of green technology that will send subliminal messages and force you to where Castro T-Shirts, smoke pot, and become a baby-seal loving commie socialist liberal.
Climate scientists are fully aware (much more so than you) of historical shifts in climate. They're also aware that such shifts in climate can have devastating effects on civilization. The climate is changing and scientists are trying to get a handle on how much it will change and what the potential consequences of that change will be.
I drive a small fuel efficient car, use CFL's and generally do what all the granola munching, tree hugging liberal rabid AGW alarmists do. Mainly because pollution is dirty, it stinks, and burning a lot of gas is a waste of money. Those are all good enough reasons to me. I don't need Al Gore to make up a reason for me to do it.
You can shove a hemp rope up your ass, tie it to a tree branch , and call
How about they study pollution and find a way to stop the billions of tonnes of garbage that still get dumped into our landfills and seas every year? Won't pollution and deforestation will kill and harm us a whole lot more than a few simple degree changes in our atmosphere?
A few simple degrees? Come on people, do you have any idea HOW MUCH ENERGY THAT IS? In the past, climate changes have destroyed entire civilizations. While that is unlikely these days (except for maybe second/third world countries), saying a "few simple degrees" is naive. That's enough to easily change dominant weather patterns and ocean circulations. That's enough to change productive cropland to arid desert and vice versa. That's part of what scientists have been researching. Depnding on where the changes happen and the extent, it could have dramatic impacts.
I'm sorry, but isn't getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment deserving more funding for research than climate research?
Uh yes. And they do. Climate science by comparison receives a pittance.
Why are they getting all that attention and research dollars?
They're definitely getting the attention. After all, it's hard not to when you have a multi-billion dollar FUD campaign aimed squarely at your balls. But he lion's share of research dollars DOES NOT go to climate research. You will never get rich being a climate researcher.
Are we being played into fools to keep on looking up at the sky at the weather instead of the ground we're standing on and the quality of air we breath?
You seem to have a very distorted view of where climate science ranks in relative importance and funding. This is probably because of the media hoopla. The reality of it is that climate science doesn't get much funding. Certain groups would like you to think otherwise, but you can look it up.
I don't deny the Earth has shown some slight warming, warming which brings us nowhere near the levels that Earth has successfully endured in the past.
The amount is "slight". The rate at which it is happening is not.
I have concerns with CO2 being named as the scapegoat.
Then you need to read the research and refute why this is so. It's not like someone just arbitrarily came to that conclusion. There is a considerable amount of research and evidence that attributes the warming to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting feedbacks it generates.
I take issue with models being called science. Models are part of the hypothesis.
You clearly don't understand the purpose of climate models. Models are not part of a hypothesis. The models are based on long-established physical equations and real world data. There is nothing mystical or magical about the equations that drive them. The scientist establish various climatological hypotheses, and then use the models to test whether or not the hypotheses are reasonable, possibly combine the results with observed/historical data. The models are a TOOL, nothing more.
Every other field of science requires a testable, and repeatable experiments. It's what makes science great, because it can weed out free energy nuts that power their cars with cold fusion and water. Evolution, for a long time, really was a hypothesis that fit the facts. It needed DNA to tie it all together and really put the last nail in the Creationist coffin. It appears that climate science is exempt from this requirement (a test of what the model concludes) before calling conclusions facts.
Yes, that's right. Climate scientist just sit around and make shit up.
You know, at least proponents of ID TRIED to argue a scientific case. Really, what bizarre world do you live in? Do you honestly think that climate science has no process for peer review or validation? Do you honestly think climate scientists just sit around cooking up whatever crazy shit comes to mind in order to further some communist agenda?
And people wonder why the climate science community doesn't engage in this kind of "debate".
The problem with the Warmers is that when a question is asked, the debate that follows is usually just a bunch of name calling.
Uh...no. What usually follows is people posting a bunch of links to research articles, IPCC reports, etc. . What follows after that is a blaise statement from deniers about how the research is bullshit, followed quickly by crackpot conspiracy and an appeal to fear of socialism/communism. Then the "warmers" call people like you crazy/fucking idiot. Then people like claim Obama is Kenyan Nazi. Then the whole damn thing Godwined and absolutely nothing was accomplished except for a huge waste of time.
Two things separate science from religion. Science assumes a lack of knowledge or that the knowledge we currently have is incorrect. Religion assumes it is right. Science wants to be challenged by anyone, where religion demands it be challenged by no one. When you deny anyone's right to ask "why?", then you are spewing dogma.
No one has a problem with you asking why. The problem is when you're directed to the answer, you ignore it or deride it. You don't want answers. You don't want to take the time to give yourself the level of education necessary in order to understand the answer. When you ask why, it's rhetorical.
Sorry, science is not about providing you personally an answer for everything. Scientists aren't going to waste their time chewing your food for you. If you aren't going to bother to learn and/or listen then you can't expect them o keep trying. They have better things to do.
CO2 is rising, no doubt about that. My issue is that it only makes up about.04% of the atmosphere. Venus and Mars both have
The Earth's climate is ALWAYS changing, as everyone well knows. Examining ice cores, fossils, geologic record, etc, prove that the Earth's climate is never steady and has always been changing. In fact, it has been both much warmer and much colder than today at various times in history.
Yep. But as you note, that isn't the point.
The people you bash as "deniers" are actually not denying climate change, but are instead debating the following points that you seem to be ignoring. They argue that: Climate change is happening, but the primary source of the change is not necessarily human activity. A common argument is that the sun is the main driver of the change.
The common argument is wrong. The sun can drive climate change, but the recent warming is not caused by the sun. There's plenty of research to back that up.
As for other arguments, none have passed scientific muster. The amount of warming correlates well with the atmospheric and albedo changes seen over the past 100 years. The increase of CO2 content of the atmosphere is right in line with estimates of current human production. If you can point to a legitimate research article indicating that all the current research is wrong, then by all means continue the argument. However, currently the mountains of evidence and research indicates anthropogenic causes.
Climate change is happening, but it may not longer be global warming. In other words, a lot of temperature data shows that we have flat-lined or cooled since 1998, though industrial output increased, especially in China. Some worry that with the absence of sunspots, we may be looking at the beginning of a new Maunder minimum, which could lead to another mini-ice age.
Try again. You cherry-picked 1998, which was an anomalously warm year. This is a standard argument that has been repeated and has been continuously been refuted. The planet has not cooled, nor has the strong warming trend reversed. At best, temperatures have been flat over the past decade. In fact, it is extremely likely that this year will be another very warm year (top ten), as there have already been several months of record or near record warmth.
If your expecting climate change to result in increasing temperatures every year, or even a handful of years, then you're not grasping the difference between meteorology and climatology.
Has any legitimate scientist put forward research saying that we're going to enter a Maunder Minimum? Has anyone besides the media harped on this as a likely possibility? On average the solar cycle is 11 years, however it can be as short as 8 years and as long as 14 years. It's very early to jump to such a conclusion.
I think a lot of people, including politicians, are starting to notice this point, because if you look at the late 90's the debate was all about the crisis of global warming, but now they've suddenly changed the name to "climate change" instead.
You can thank the general ignorance of the population for that change, and it certainly wasn't sudden.
Climate change is happening, but considering that the climate has always changed, it is no reason to shutter our industries and destroy our economies.
Who's advocating destroying our economies? Seriously? I don't know a single scientist recommending any such thing. Oh wait, you must listen to the ridiculous asinine rhetoric that tells you that's what advocates want.
And it is also not a reason to give the government more control of our lives.
Yeah. Because climate scientist want to put you into green house gas re-education camps so they can implement their communist utopia. I'm sorry, but there can be no scientific "debate" with you. Or any debate at all. You part of the "evil conspiracy" camp and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You're favorite deity could come down out of whatever magical sky ki
Thank you very much. Science is hard. If you're not willing to work at it, you won't understand it. If you're not willing to work at it, you won't. That's not the scientist's fault.
The problem is that these people who want to be spoon fed science actually vote, and a lot of science and research is funded by the government. So if your research happens to fall on the wrong side (you know, the one where companies stand to lose money) then you can be sure of a multi-billion dollar FUD campaign aimed squarely at you. You will be derided, defamed, attacked, crucified, and buried. The industries of manufactured doubt are exceedingly good at their job, and it would most likely take less than an election cycle to guarantee that you won't receive another dime of research funding.
It usually takes a significant consequence before people snap out of the FUD (lung cancer increases from tobacco, enlarging ozone hole, swaths of forest dying from acid rain, etc.).
Counter example: The recent democratic primary in South Carolina. An unemployed person with no campaign, no money, practically no anything living in his parents basement won. How did he win? Why did he win?
Because his name was placed first on the ballot.
People are only as smart as they want to be, and unfortunately as a country we are intellectually lazy. Look no further than any of the 24 hour news networks for proof. Everything is a soundbite, designed to cause as little original thought and critical thinking as possible. Look at congress, and how campaigns are run. Soundbites that pander to their base, telling people what they want to hear instead of what needs to be heard. Everything is spin and distortion, wrapped in colorful glitz and glamor packages for the masses to make sure they keep the ratings up. Divide and conquer.
Yes, there are enough smart people to relay information to less informed. That isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't want to listen. Thinking is hard. Changing or questioning your perceptions and beliefs is too unsettling. People like being lied to as long as it is the lies they want to hear. Many people are so wrapped up in their own reality distortion field that it takes an act of $DIETY to shake them out of it.
And on another note: I just noticed that the national debt jumped from 10.5 to 13 trillion since Obama took office. That's ~$130,000 owed by each American home. Think about that. Can you afford to pay off ~$130,000 in debt? I sure as hell can't. And that doesn't include unfunded liabilities (medicare, SS, etc) which I suspect will eventually be discontinued due to lack of money.
I paid off my debt. Now it's time for the government to do the same. When the Communist Cold War ended in 1990, that's when the government should have cut spending and paid-off the debt. It was only 3 trillion then. Now it's much bigger and harder to tackle.
Once again we come to the critical decision in the battle of the debt bulge. The two largest (by far) costs are defense and social programs, with interest on debt rapidly climbing from the 3rd position. So...what do you cut?
So here's the tricky part. No politician will make any significant cuts in either of those two categories. It's the equivalent of political suicide. Even if a staunch group of politicians got together with enough balls to make significant cuts in either defense or social spending, and they were completely ok with the fact that they would be buried (literally or politically), the next group elected after them would put things right back in place.
And now for the third option: Raising taxes. Another way to commit political suicide. If party A in power votes to increase taxes and by some bizarre twist of fate succeeds, party B will get voted in an roll them back for their favorite group of people.
No one has the balls to make big cuts. No one has the balls to raise taxes (even during wartime). Everyone wants to spend money.
On the bright side, this can't go on forever. The government will either be forced to make drastic cuts and/or make drastic tax increases. Of course, neither option will end well but perhaps some real change can happen then.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, no.
I know you were trying to be tongue-in-cheek but increased CO2 levels are not going to have much effect on the thermosphere to the level that they're seeing. Sure, a higher greenhouse content in the troposphere will have some impact due to successive cooling of the higher atmospheric layers, but there is hardly any atmosphere at those levels anyway. In addition, the change they saw was year over while global warming takes place over decades.
Unless the warming caused some sort of critical level to be reached (possible, but unlikely), I doubt this has much to do with increased CO2 content in the troposphere. Whoever wrote the article tried REALLY hard to link it to increased CO2 levels, but that's ludicrous. The CO2 in the troposphere does not migrate to the thermosphere, at least not in any reasonable time frame to match the observations.
That's great, is it your original or copied and pasted? Any chance of a Youtube version or an mp3? :D
It's original. I don't have the musical talent to make it a reality though. Maybe someone else will. :D
Troll Rhapsody
Is that a real post?
This must be just fantasy.
Caught in a thread flood
No escape from the trolling spree
Open your browser
The trolls getting louder, please
I'm just a poor troll (Poor troll),
I need no sympathy
Because I'm easy come, easy go
Little high, little low
Any way the thread goes
Doesn't really matter to me, to me.
Mama, just killed a thread
Posted a picture of Hitler's Head
Godwined it and now it's dead
Mama, the thread had just begun
But now I've gone and thrown it all away
Mama, ooh
I want to make it die
If it's not locked tight by this time tomorrow
Carry on, carry on as if nothing really matters
Too late, this thread is done
Sends electrons down my line
Brain is aching all the time
Goodbye, everybody
The thread has got to go
The troll will leave you all behind 'cuz it's a douche
Mama, oooooooh (Anyway the thread goes)
This thread don't wanna die
Sometimes wish it'd never been born at all
[Guitar Solo]
I see a little silhouetto of a troll
Meta-whoosh, Meta-whoosh, he didn't get it at all
Politics, Religion, can't believe I fed him! Sheesh!
(Hitler Stalin) Obama Palin (Global Warming) I'm Just Sayin', Do not feed the little troll!
Magnifico-o-o-o-o
I'm just a poor troll nobody loves me
He's just a poor troll check his facebook page and see
He's made this thread into another travesty
Easy come, easy go, will you let me troll?
Bismillah! No, we will not let you troll
Let him troll
Bismillah! We will not let you troll
Let him troll
Bismillah! We will not let you troll
Let me troll (Will not let you troll)
Let me troll (Will not let you troll) (Never, never, never, never)
Let me troll, o, o, o, o
No, no, no, no, no, no, no
(Oh mama mia, mama mia) Mama Mia, let me troll
The Sysadmin has a banning put aside for me, for me, for me!
So you think you can troll me and spit in my eye
So you think you can troll me and leave me to die
Oh, douchebag, can't do this to me, douchebag
You just get out, just gotta get right outta here
[Guitar Solo]
(Oooh yeah, Oooh yeah)
Trolls don't really matter
Anyone can see
Trolls don't really matter
Trolls don't really matter to me
Any way the thread goes...
In other news, ChatRoulette is looking for a new name. Some of the top contenders are:
BouncyPenis
FindAFap
PervertLottery
And...
INeverKnewYouCouldDoThatWithAHamster
Goatse and Tubgirl are also falling from fame as lolcatz and trolls everywhere now just link to ChatRoulette. More after we come back from commercial.
They're all using the exact same data. Why would you expect their results to be different from each other? The weight of paper is meaningless.
No they are not. GISS has it's own data set. WRF has it's own data set. GEOS has it's own data set. So on and so forth. They may share data sets. They may even reprocess data to conform to the model input requirements, but there is a HUGE amount of data provided by multiple sources.
You have no idea what I do or do not know about this issue.
On the contrary, your blanket statements discrediting the sum total of climate research based on your own perceptions is pretty telling.
With respect to their research, I think "quality" is not really the word I would use in the same sentence. You seem to turn a blind eye to the lack of verifiability caused by shoddy data archiving practises.
You are making a very large assumption that every institution that performs climate science follows the same practices, which is incorrect. For example, all of NASA's climate research data is stored onto multiply redundant tape storage. There are data sets going back decades. Same with NOAA's.
You also turn a blind eye to people like Wegman - experts in statistics - who roundly criticised practices in the field.
Peer-reviewed article please. Anyone can criticize but if that critique does not hold under investigation then it is useless.
It might also be the case where someone who doesn't understand the domain is trying to apply what they know to analyze it.
That rather depends on who is doing the reviewing. As we know from the emails, papers are sent to "sympathetic" reviewers.
No, they aren't. You're making shit up. The papers mentioned in the email were published regardless of the feelings of CRU scientists. Scientists don't get to say who reviews what papers. That's up to the research periodical.
Again, you're bringing up the same tired "it's a global conspiracy" crap that simply makes no sense and doesn't hold water.
On the whole I think your faith in the climate scientists is touching, if naive.
Faith? Faith has nothing to do with it. I look at the research and the science. The factual evidence, as well as anecdotal evidence is very clear. At this point, there has been no legitimate, peer reviewed set of research that discounts the current research results. Until that changes or until a REAL climategate happens, then I am siding with the science.
So your implying that Gavin is a dishonest swindler? And your proof of this would be what? What is your evidence that discredits the research he's done? Where is your proof that the articles he posts on realclimate are worthless and have no merit?
It's very easy to make baseless accusations. Fortunately, it takes more than an irrational/emotional rant to prove someone of misconduct.
However, if you have irrefutable evidence of such, then by all means send it to the appropriate authorities.
You know, I could post links showing how you are utterly and completely wrong on every count. I could show you solid science and solid research in each case. However, I don't think that will make a lick of difference in GNT land.
Continue along in your ignorance. I have better things to do.
In your post above, what's missing is the bit where you explain what was wrong with Steve McIntyre's analysis.
I don't need to. Others have done it for me. Except those others happen to be climate scientists, so I guess that doesn't count.
Because although you delight in the ad-hominem against him, you will note that his criticisms are hard to dispute, particularly the excellent work he did on Briffa and the Yamal series.
No they're not. Real Climate article http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/
And at the end there is even a convenient link to a published peer reviewed research article refuting the claims.
The problem here is that none of the inquires bothered to interview those in a position to "verify" the claims. Indeed, I don't believe any of them even asked McIntyre for a statement, even though he was the subject of a lot of the bile in the emails.
And what claims would those be exactly? And why would thy ask McIntyre for a statement? Unlike the jackass who dumped their mail server and selected only the emails that he/she/it wanted to show, the investigators had access to all of them, plus whatever else they wanted.
You obey the law and honour the request. Your ego is not a higher authority on these matters, unless you're as arrogant and self-regarding as the Climate-Gate clique and their supporters
I never said he made the right decision. People hold up that quote and turn him into the "Evil Climate Conspiracy Monster". He had his reasons for doing what he did, and it had a lot more to do with the feeling being unnecessarily harassed than "hiding the data".
If your data, methods and claims are water-tight, you've got nothing to worry about.
Oh my. You are so naive.
It took years of fighting before anything was done about smoking. It took years of fighting before anything was done about acid rain. It took years of fighting before anything was done about CFCs and the ozone hole. In all cases there was "water-tight" research (and lot's of it) showing that bad shit was happening. But that doesn't matter when you have a billion dollar PR machine on your side. You don't even need to refute the research. All you need to do is plant a little seed of doubt and all that water-tight science won't mean jack shit in front of the public or congress.
You can't show research proving that something a multi-billion dollar conglomerate is doing is bad and expect your research to be the end of the discussion. They will attack you, drag you through the mud, crucify you, and leave you to the crows.
If they're cobbled together from poorly documented, poorly maintained, part-deleted data, with dubious analysis, as was the case here, then the claims *you* are making, upon which trillions of dollars depend, should not be taken seriously.
How many times does this need to be repeated? CRU != Climate Science Community. It doesn't. Nobody is making a trillion dollar decision based soley on the research done by CRU. No one. Really.
However, when you have thousands of climate scientists from every major national research group on the planet all reporting research that indicates the same thing, maybe, just maybe, people should take notice.
Even if CRU falsified EVERYTHING, there's still thousands upon thousands of research papers out there all showing the same damn thing.
You're also making a lot of claims in regards to the quality of their research, which really you don't seem to know much about. You don't get published in research journals by putting a pile a crap together and sending it in. You won't even make it past the initial review.
Climate science, like any other science branch, is highly competitive. If you send in some POS paper other researchers will be m
Do you know how to keep things in context?
Let's say you've been doing research on something for 20-30 years. Now some asshole who has little in the way of knowledge or experience in the field comes along and starts screaming across the net that your research is a pile of crap. He shows a lack of understanding of the science, continuously posts incorrect or skewed facts, and encourages an environment that's openly hostile towards your research. Said asshole then comes along and DEMANDS that you give him all your research and data.
Now seeing the way said asshole has manipulated and incorrectly used data in the past to "prove" his naive and fallacious hypotheses, and his past hostile tendencies towards your research, what do you do about the request?
A) Give him what he wants, knowing full well that your research will be deliberately misused and distorted. Except now, it will be YOUR NAME giving "credibility" to his bullshit since it was the data YOU USED to conduct your research.
B) Tell him to fuck off because you have better things to do with your time than to placate a hostile, ignorant asshole with delusions of grandeur.
Phil eventually chose option B. Perhaps not the best option in hindsight, but either way he would have been screwed.
None of the people who asked for the data were amateurs.
Bullshit. Steve McIntyre is NOT a climatologist, and neither is Anthony Watts. However they're practically the cheerleaders for the mad dog skeptic movement. Factions of the Tea Party movement practically worship the electrons they transmit their blogs through. They're not the only ones either. Now it's gotten to the point where researches who should be, you know, researching have to spend enormous amounts of their time dealing with the growing deluge of FOIA requests.
The sad part is, absolutely everything could be made 100% open and free and you would STILL have people like McIntyre and Watts claiming a world wide conspiracy.
This has never been about "openness". It's not about the quality of research. It's not about modeling errors, statistical analysis, weather station locations, or anything else. This has been, and will continue to be, about a concerted effort to undermine scientific research and results to maintain or increase profitable gain. Conspiracy? Hardly. Perhaps if this hadn't happened before, then one could call it a conspiracy. But it has. Several times. Anyone who remembers the "controversies" over acid rain, ozone depletion through CFCs, or smoking knows exactly how a well funded, well-oiled FUD machine can destroy even the best scientific research.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
It's not the noise so much as the heat. Turbine exhaust is much hotter than normal exhaust. You wouldn't want to be in NYC on a hot summer day surrounded by turbine based cars. Urban heat island wouldn't begin to describe it.
Of course, in order to reach high efficiencies you have to handle the waste heat in a meaningful way (otherwise it isn't very efficient). That can be tricky inside the frame of a car.
It seems you aren't paying attention.
The WG2 section was specifically made to include "gray data" from sources OTHER THAN pure scientific research. It was meant as an aggregate for other sources of information, and it even says so. You might think of it as "anecdotal", and should be treated as such.
If you're looking for scientifically validated information, you DO NOT look in WG2.
I suppose it is there for completeness, but I think it would be much better if they just left it out entirely.
Stop climate change? Sorry, but that ship has sailed.
Even if we stop all CO2 production, warming would continue. The environment has not caught up to what we have done so far, and most likely won't for a few decade.
The typical starting amount for CO2 concentrations is 280-290 PPM, and right now we're around 390 PPM. In order to get back down to even 1990 levels, we'd have to get rid of around 50 PPM from the atmosphere. There is no technology in existence that can do this in any reasonable time frame.
So no, at this point there isn't much we can do to stop it. We can prepare for it, and take steps to mitigate further climate change, but there's nothing we can do to stop it at this point.
No, it's where all the terrorists live. And leopards. Lots and lots of leopards.
Megatron will be pleased.
Look, I'm not going to wast my time arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic atmospheric physics and thermodynamics. It's not worth my time. There are an incredible amount of books, research articles, etc. that cover the topics. If you are unwilling to even make the most basic effort to understand what you're talking about, you aren't a rational skeptic or any kind of skeptic. Your just another torch-and-pitchfork, burn-the-witch ignoramus.
You want some sources? You can't figure out to use google? Here's a good book on the subject:
http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Climate-Peixoto-P-Jose/dp/0883187124
And there are dozens of others recommended on Amazon that would also be good reading.
For modeling, you can try: http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at604.html
This is a free (as in beer) introduction into the rudimentary concepts. Or you can start with simple zero dimension energy balance models such as this one:
http://www.math.nyu.edu/caos_teaching/physical_oceanography/numerical_exercises/ebm/zero_dim_ebm.html
And work your way up from there. Or if these are too advanced for you, you can start out with just about any introductory college level physics book that covers basic atmosphere and thermodynamics principles.
Or, if you're one of the climate science conspiracy nuts and you don't trust any materials related to climate science, then you can start with a good book on meteorology like this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Meteorology-Understanding-Atmosphere-CengageNOW-Printed/dp/0495108928/ref=pd_sim_b_7
This should at least dispel your erroneous assumptions and reasoning from your earlier post.
I ENCOURAGE rational skepticism. It adds to a discussion. It makes people think in different ways. IT IS A GOOD THING.
I DO NOT encourage blatant willful ignorance, which is what you are demonstrating. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, and is a general waste of time for both skeptics and supporters.
If you are unwilling to expend the effort to truly educate yourself (and it seems like you are), then there is nothing further to discuss.
This still doesn't change the fact that the AGW argument is supported by insufficient evidence and flawed computer models.
I assume you have the peer reviewed research and a full verified dissection of the computer models and flaws to back up this statement. What? You don't? Well how about something refuting the decades, actually over a century of climate research to the point that renders all current research invalid. You don't? The you must be a climatologist or performing doctorate level research in a related field that shows categorically that current research is all flawed. You aren't?
Why am I not surprised. I can play the make believe game too. I can make believe that I am the world's premiere heart surgeon and declare that all doctors R DOIN IT RONG. Then I can post as proof a link to blog that may or may not be written by me or some half-baked scammer with proof that I am a l33t super doctor.
But you know what? No matter how much I repeat that I'm am a super doctor, it doesn't make it true. No matter how many research articles I hold up and poke imaginary holes in, that doesn't mean I can perform a bypass operation. Basically, any idiot can make any claim they want. If it isn't peer-reviewed and backed up the expert community then it doesn't mean jack shit.
There are legitimate skeptics out there, but none of them make the same idiotic claims you do.
Much of North America and Europe used to be covered in glaciers, and they were gone before man existed.
Actually, man existed when there were giant glaciers. We weren't very populous then and at one point almost went extinct. That being said, this has little relevance.
GW was happening long before fossil fuels were dug out of the ground. There's actual hard evidence of this.
Yeah, and your still missing the point. We have grown heavily dependent on our climate to survive. That climate is changing. There will be consequences.
AGW is a scam to guilt people into spending money on "Green" technology utilizing a naturally occurring phenomena that was already in full swing before man existed.
And this is modded insightful? Really slashdot?
So let's see if I can follow this conspiracy. First, it has to be worldwide right? Ok, we got a bunch of climate scientists going over the evil plan to create a massive scientific fraud. First, they "guilt" everyone into buying green technology. Then...what? Exactly how does buying green technology bring the scientists evil plan into fruition? What evil purpose is fulfilled by getting the world to unwittingly buy green technology?
Money? Almost all client research is funded by government grants and universities (and it really isn't much). So how does buying green technology get money into scientists pockets? Perhaps it's power then. But what power do scientists get from having people buy green technologies?
Perhaps I'm just not being fucking insane enough. Maybe the government will embed mind control devices inside of green technology that will send subliminal messages and force you to where Castro T-Shirts, smoke pot, and become a baby-seal loving commie socialist liberal.
Climate scientists are fully aware (much more so than you) of historical shifts in climate. They're also aware that such shifts in climate can have devastating effects on civilization. The climate is changing and scientists are trying to get a handle on how much it will change and what the potential consequences of that change will be.
I drive a small fuel efficient car, use CFL's and generally do what all the granola munching, tree hugging liberal rabid AGW alarmists do. Mainly because pollution is dirty, it stinks, and burning a lot of gas is a waste of money. Those are all good enough reasons to me. I don't need Al Gore to make up a reason for me to do it.
You can shove a hemp rope up your ass, tie it to a tree branch , and call
How about they study pollution and find a way to stop the billions of tonnes of garbage that still get dumped into our landfills and seas every year? Won't pollution and deforestation will kill and harm us a whole lot more than a few simple degree changes in our atmosphere?
A few simple degrees? Come on people, do you have any idea HOW MUCH ENERGY THAT IS? In the past, climate changes have destroyed entire civilizations. While that is unlikely these days (except for maybe second/third world countries), saying a "few simple degrees" is naive. That's enough to easily change dominant weather patterns and ocean circulations. That's enough to change productive cropland to arid desert and vice versa. That's part of what scientists have been researching. Depnding on where the changes happen and the extent, it could have dramatic impacts.
I'm sorry, but isn't getting sick with dieases like cancer from a contaminated environment deserving more funding for research than climate research?
Uh yes. And they do. Climate science by comparison receives a pittance.
Why are they getting all that attention and research dollars?
They're definitely getting the attention. After all, it's hard not to when you have a multi-billion dollar FUD campaign aimed squarely at your balls. But he lion's share of research dollars DOES NOT go to climate research. You will never get rich being a climate researcher.
Are we being played into fools to keep on looking up at the sky at the weather instead of the ground we're standing on and the quality of air we breath?
You seem to have a very distorted view of where climate science ranks in relative importance and funding. This is probably because of the media hoopla. The reality of it is that climate science doesn't get much funding. Certain groups would like you to think otherwise, but you can look it up.
I don't deny the Earth has shown some slight warming, warming which brings us nowhere near the levels that Earth has successfully endured in the past.
The amount is "slight". The rate at which it is happening is not.
I have concerns with CO2 being named as the scapegoat.
Then you need to read the research and refute why this is so. It's not like someone just arbitrarily came to that conclusion. There is a considerable amount of research and evidence that attributes the warming to increased CO2 in the atmosphere and the resulting feedbacks it generates.
I take issue with models being called science. Models are part of the hypothesis.
You clearly don't understand the purpose of climate models. Models are not part of a hypothesis. The models are based on long-established physical equations and real world data. There is nothing mystical or magical about the equations that drive them. The scientist establish various climatological hypotheses, and then use the models to test whether or not the hypotheses are reasonable, possibly combine the results with observed/historical data. The models are a TOOL, nothing more.
Every other field of science requires a testable, and repeatable experiments. It's what makes science great, because it can weed out free energy nuts that power their cars with cold fusion and water. Evolution, for a long time, really was a hypothesis that fit the facts. It needed DNA to tie it all together and really put the last nail in the Creationist coffin. It appears that climate science is exempt from this requirement (a test of what the model concludes) before calling conclusions facts.
Yes, that's right. Climate scientist just sit around and make shit up.
You know, at least proponents of ID TRIED to argue a scientific case. Really, what bizarre world do you live in? Do you honestly think that climate science has no process for peer review or validation? Do you honestly think climate scientists just sit around cooking up whatever crazy shit comes to mind in order to further some communist agenda?
And people wonder why the climate science community doesn't engage in this kind of "debate".
The problem with the Warmers is that when a question is asked, the debate that follows is usually just a bunch of name calling.
Uh...no. What usually follows is people posting a bunch of links to research articles, IPCC reports, etc. . What follows after that is a blaise statement from deniers about how the research is bullshit, followed quickly by crackpot conspiracy and an appeal to fear of socialism/communism. Then the "warmers" call people like you crazy/fucking idiot. Then people like claim Obama is Kenyan Nazi. Then the whole damn thing Godwined and absolutely nothing was accomplished except for a huge waste of time.
Two things separate science from religion. Science assumes a lack of knowledge or that the knowledge we currently have is incorrect. Religion assumes it is right. Science wants to be challenged by anyone, where religion demands it be challenged by no one. When you deny anyone's right to ask "why?", then you are spewing dogma.
No one has a problem with you asking why. The problem is when you're directed to the answer, you ignore it or deride it. You don't want answers. You don't want to take the time to give yourself the level of education necessary in order to understand the answer. When you ask why, it's rhetorical.
Sorry, science is not about providing you personally an answer for everything. Scientists aren't going to waste their time chewing your food for you. If you aren't going to bother to learn and/or listen then you can't expect them o keep trying. They have better things to do.
CO2 is rising, no doubt about that. My issue is that it only makes up about .04% of the atmosphere. Venus and Mars both have
The Earth's climate is ALWAYS changing, as everyone well knows. Examining ice cores, fossils, geologic record, etc, prove that the Earth's climate is never steady and has always been changing. In fact, it has been both much warmer and much colder than today at various times in history.
Yep. But as you note, that isn't the point.
The people you bash as "deniers" are actually not denying climate change, but are instead debating the following points that you seem to be ignoring. They argue that: Climate change is happening, but the primary source of the change is not necessarily human activity. A common argument is that the sun is the main driver of the change.
The common argument is wrong. The sun can drive climate change, but the recent warming is not caused by the sun. There's plenty of research to back that up.
As for other arguments, none have passed scientific muster. The amount of warming correlates well with the atmospheric and albedo changes seen over the past 100 years. The increase of CO2 content of the atmosphere is right in line with estimates of current human production. If you can point to a legitimate research article indicating that all the current research is wrong, then by all means continue the argument. However, currently the mountains of evidence and research indicates anthropogenic causes.
Climate change is happening, but it may not longer be global warming. In other words, a lot of temperature data shows that we have flat-lined or cooled since 1998, though industrial output increased, especially in China. Some worry that with the absence of sunspots, we may be looking at the beginning of a new Maunder minimum, which could lead to another mini-ice age.
Try again. You cherry-picked 1998, which was an anomalously warm year. This is a standard argument that has been repeated and has been continuously been refuted. The planet has not cooled, nor has the strong warming trend reversed. At best, temperatures have been flat over the past decade. In fact, it is extremely likely that this year will be another very warm year (top ten), as there have already been several months of record or near record warmth.
If your expecting climate change to result in increasing temperatures every year, or even a handful of years, then you're not grasping the difference between meteorology and climatology.
Has any legitimate scientist put forward research saying that we're going to enter a Maunder Minimum? Has anyone besides the media harped on this as a likely possibility? On average the solar cycle is 11 years, however it can be as short as 8 years and as long as 14 years. It's very early to jump to such a conclusion.
I think a lot of people, including politicians, are starting to notice this point, because if you look at the late 90's the debate was all about the crisis of global warming, but now they've suddenly changed the name to "climate change" instead.
You can thank the general ignorance of the population for that change, and it certainly wasn't sudden.
Climate change is happening, but considering that the climate has always changed, it is no reason to shutter our industries and destroy our economies.
Who's advocating destroying our economies? Seriously? I don't know a single scientist recommending any such thing. Oh wait, you must listen to the ridiculous asinine rhetoric that tells you that's what advocates want.
And it is also not a reason to give the government more control of our lives.
Yeah. Because climate scientist want to put you into green house gas re-education camps so they can implement their communist utopia. I'm sorry, but there can be no scientific "debate" with you. Or any debate at all. You part of the "evil conspiracy" camp and no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You're favorite deity could come down out of whatever magical sky ki
Thank you very much. Science is hard. If you're not willing to work at it, you won't understand it. If you're not willing to work at it, you won't. That's not the scientist's fault.
The problem is that these people who want to be spoon fed science actually vote, and a lot of science and research is funded by the government. So if your research happens to fall on the wrong side (you know, the one where companies stand to lose money) then you can be sure of a multi-billion dollar FUD campaign aimed squarely at you. You will be derided, defamed, attacked, crucified, and buried. The industries of manufactured doubt are exceedingly good at their job, and it would most likely take less than an election cycle to guarantee that you won't receive another dime of research funding.
It usually takes a significant consequence before people snap out of the FUD (lung cancer increases from tobacco, enlarging ozone hole, swaths of forest dying from acid rain, etc.).
Counter example: The recent democratic primary in South Carolina. An unemployed person with no campaign, no money, practically no anything living in his parents basement won. How did he win? Why did he win?
Because his name was placed first on the ballot.
People are only as smart as they want to be, and unfortunately as a country we are intellectually lazy. Look no further than any of the 24 hour news networks for proof. Everything is a soundbite, designed to cause as little original thought and critical thinking as possible. Look at congress, and how campaigns are run. Soundbites that pander to their base, telling people what they want to hear instead of what needs to be heard. Everything is spin and distortion, wrapped in colorful glitz and glamor packages for the masses to make sure they keep the ratings up. Divide and conquer.
Yes, there are enough smart people to relay information to less informed. That isn't the problem. The problem is that people don't want to listen. Thinking is hard. Changing or questioning your perceptions and beliefs is too unsettling. People like being lied to as long as it is the lies they want to hear. Many people are so wrapped up in their own reality distortion field that it takes an act of $DIETY to shake them out of it.
Ignorance really is bliss.
Relativity is just a model.
Just like Camelot.
You have provided the final information for my theory!
England = Monty Python * Camelot^2
And on another note: I just noticed that the national debt jumped from 10.5 to 13 trillion since Obama took office. That's ~$130,000 owed by each American home. Think about that. Can you afford to pay off ~$130,000 in debt? I sure as hell can't. And that doesn't include unfunded liabilities (medicare, SS, etc) which I suspect will eventually be discontinued due to lack of money.
I paid off my debt. Now it's time for the government to do the same. When the Communist Cold War ended in 1990, that's when the government should have cut spending and paid-off the debt. It was only 3 trillion then. Now it's much bigger and harder to tackle.
Once again we come to the critical decision in the battle of the debt bulge. The two largest (by far) costs are defense and social programs, with interest on debt rapidly climbing from the 3rd position. So...what do you cut?
So here's the tricky part. No politician will make any significant cuts in either of those two categories. It's the equivalent of political suicide. Even if a staunch group of politicians got together with enough balls to make significant cuts in either defense or social spending, and they were completely ok with the fact that they would be buried (literally or politically), the next group elected after them would put things right back in place.
And now for the third option: Raising taxes. Another way to commit political suicide. If party A in power votes to increase taxes and by some bizarre twist of fate succeeds, party B will get voted in an roll them back for their favorite group of people.
No one has the balls to make big cuts. No one has the balls to raise taxes (even during wartime). Everyone wants to spend money.
On the bright side, this can't go on forever. The government will either be forced to make drastic cuts and/or make drastic tax increases. Of course, neither option will end well but perhaps some real change can happen then.
Simpsons did it.