Global Warming News

[Loren49]

Goodmorning,

Global Warming-As was stated earlier personally I don't debate that there were some suspect conclusions and data on this topic recently. I have seen no evidence of scientific investigation by the denier supporters (big oil). In the light of day they state that they recognize the problem but in the dark they try to undermine. (see posts) From my research it appears they are using some of the same people and organizations that worked for the Tobacco deniers. If they truly believe in what they are doing - get together in the open and do some science!

Shell and BP still funding climate change denial Leaves caution behind

"Shell and BP still funding climate change denial
with one comment

Though oil companies BP and Shell both acknowledge the reality of climate change, both continue to support industry associations that are lobbying against climate change legislation:

釘P maintains its membership of the API through paying substantial fees based on the large size of BP痴 business. It is our concern that these fees are used by the API to undermine US government action on climate change and that BP痴 membership of the API contradicts its position on the issue, writes John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, in a letter to Tony Hayward, the BP boss."

Environmental Law Prof Blog: Exxon Continued to Fund Climate Change Denial Campaign in 2006

February 14, 2008

Exxon Continued to Fund Climate Change Denial Campaign in 2006

"Most of us are convinced now that anthropomorphic climate change is based on sound, virtually unassailable science, that all but a few climate scientists agree with that assessment, that the questions to be answered now are:
how quickly and by what means to reduce GHG emissions,
what the inescapable impacts are of the GHG emissions already in the atmosphere and liable to be added to the atmosphere before we achieve carbon neutrality,
how to undertake the task of adapting to the impacts that are liable to occur in the next century or so.
This time last year ExxonMobil waged a campaign with bloggers to convince us that they recognized the reality of anthropogenic global warming and were serious about solutions.
Most of us are also aware of the intense disinformation campaign that was waged by the Bush administration and others with respect to climate change science. That campaign continues."

You may just be a pawn in their game"


Constitution- population 1790 was about 4,000,000 and just trying to survive: population 2010 is about 300,000,00 - world leader: Government needs to change.

I feel that there should be national licencing standards for nurses and teachers. The 50 different set of regulations and testing is not efficient and is a wasteful and requires 50 different sets of rules and officials. People are so much more mobile than in 1790. Drivers licences are different - you can drive for considerable time in any state. Example where bigger fed would be a benefit to mobile families.

From 2nd amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What if I want a new Virginia Class nuclear submarine along with a couple thermonuclear bombs? Not stated in constitution -how dare the federal government regulate it. This is just as valid as much of the complaining-just change the names to roads or healthcare etc. Our courts decide if it works - its not perfect but its the best we have.

Concerning taxes - I was a highway superintendent for 2 years (1983-84) (currently on Town Board). First question from some residents - when do you plan to fix my road? Second question - Why are my taxes so high?

I enjoy a good discussion, especially when it stays civil. It helps me understand others point of view and makes me rethink things. One thing I did get from going back to college at 38 years old was that before I went I was very confident in many things. By the time I earned a Masters Degree I realized how little I knew about so many things (especially my major, Mathematics) (I earned all A's in my second try at college - first attempt I earned C's) Point is as a C student I was quite confident that I knew the answers to many things and after becoming an A student I lost a lot of that. All that college biology, chemistry and physics taught me was that I knew just enough to be dangerous. I do feel like I can smell a skunk though. Now I question things, try to find good data and then apply my prejudices. Very few things are black and white - lots of grey out there. (like just what does "arms" mean)

Take care,
Loren

 

[Loren49]

FallbrockFarmer:

I know that some doctors don't accept medicare but it looks like most do. They obviously are busy with higher paying patients. There are nowhere near 75% of doctors in my healthcare providers network. (It cost me $$$ when we were in Florida last year)

Study: Most physicians still accepting Medicare patients - FierceHealthFinance - Health Finance, Healthcare Finance

"While Medicare still isn't a most favored payer, medical practices aren't turning away Medicare beneficiaries in droves. That's one of the main conclusions drawn by new research from the Center for Studying Health System Change, which found that nearly 75 percent of doctors accepted all or most new Medicare patients in 2008."

Here's a little info on Glenn Beck for any who care to read it.
Beck's guest accidentally exposes Beck's hypocritical progressive slandering | Media Matters for America

Take care,
Loren

 

[keegs]

Ditto....Doc, give me the needle to end it all, and let me move on.

Agreed IH...However, we've all witnessed over the past several years how end of life care decisions can be applied as political catnip to excite one's political base.

 

[Loren49]

Hi,
Just got off the tractor after about an hour of clearing out yesterday's snow (probably a little playing too).

Caution- open only if you want to read about a corporation who is running for congress (In light of the recent Supreme Court Ruling that gives them right of a citizen)
Think Progress Corporation Runs For Maryland Congressional Seat To Protest SCOTUS Campaign Finance Decision

here is their campaign website:
Murray Hill Inc. | Murray Hill Incorporated is Running for Congress

Enjoy,
Loren

 

[Loren49]

Sorry-here is a reaction by someone who has dealt with outsourcing of government interests. (my brother wrote it) Not claiming its a correct conclusion but believe it is an interesting read for anyone interested.

Gary Lyndaker: 'Shadow Elite': Information Is Power And Who's Controlling Our Information?

Loren

 

[Pilot]

Why should I care if "Big Oil" or the Sierra Club funds climate change research, as long as the findings are peer reviewed in a legitimate and open review process, not controlled by a clique of advocates or deniers? What we need is valid science, which we don't have as right now the alarmists control the or attempt to control what you hear. That's clear in the climategate emails.

Instead we have a bunch of alarmists running the IPCC and making big bucks off the funding which they generate with more alarming statements. The IPCC chief, Pachauri has been charged with conflicts of interest, Phil Jones has had millions in funding; his career and personal wealth depend on the global warming issue carrying on. And how is that different from Exxon funding anything?

This notion of big oil or any big business being inherently evil is just as ignorant as racial prejudice. Some of the most ethical people I have worked for were high level people in big corporations. Just because a corporation's mission is to make money doesn't automatically make every thing they do illegitimate, in spite of what the left would have you believe.

Here's a test. Are you human? Would you violate your ethics for more money or to look good to your bosses? Is a business man human? Why do you believe a business man is automatically less moral than yourself? We have millions of business people out there and once in awhile one of them makes the news big time for unlawful behavior and we usually send them to jail.

Compare that with politicians who we elect and reelect to run the country even though they have screwed things up over and over. There is hardly a politician out there I would hire to sell balloons at the county fair. If there is ever a class of people I would smear with a broad brush, it wouldn't be business people, it is politicians, yet they continually get rehired by the electorate.

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Boy am I at a disadvantage here, being 3-4 hours behind, but one does what one must. HEHE.
Totally agree with Pilot. What difference does it make who funds a study(unless there is a preordained result) the truth is the truth. There are certain empirical facts that cannot be rationally disputed.
I think that the whole AGW argument is starting to unravel, when you have huge economic decisions based on someones reading of someones elses reading of further reading of a "student dissertation", and the economic decision is going to affect the recompense of the reseacher.
Question: Loren49. Why don't you question the conclusions of the AGW researchers whose funding is dependent on the continued belief in AGW?
If the funding somehow taints the conclusion-------

 

[Loren49]

Pilot,
I don't disagree with much you said. I did not claim that they should not be involved. The point I made with big oil is that they have done only "back door" funding of denial groups for years just as big tobacco funded denial groups for years. I don't know of any Science on emission issues that has been done in the open by these corporations. Some have pledged publicly that green house gas emissions are a serious problem and all have tried to hide their support of the deniers. (are you as accepting of politicians you disagree with?)

Just as you state, there are exceedingly hard working business people - I will add that we can find similar people in the public sector. I know of no one who is more dedicated and hardworking than my former Superintendent of Schools. (workaholic) His pay about $150000 with benefits and bonuses(zero) Big business - bonuses in tens of millions (while firing people).

On politicians - there is no one to fault but ourselves for reelecting the bad ones. How many of us check out any of the political "sound bites" with somewhat of an open mind. I don't feel we can blame that on government.

Take care,
Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Goodmorning,

Global Warming-As was stated earlier personally I don't debate that there were some suspect conclusions and data on this topic recently. I have seen no evidence of scientific investigation by the denier supporters (big oil). In the light of day they state that they recognize the problem but in the dark they try to undermine. (see posts) From my research it appears they are using some of the same people and organizations that worked for the Tobacco deniers. If they truly believe in what they are doing - get together in the open and do some science!

Shell and BP still funding climate change denial Leaves caution behind

"Shell and BP still funding climate change denial
with one comment

Though oil companies BP and Shell both acknowledge the reality of climate change, both continue to support industry associations that are lobbying against climate change legislation:

釘P maintains its membership of the API through paying substantial fees based on the large size of BP痴 business. It is our concern that these fees are used by the API to undermine US government action on climate change and that BP痴 membership of the API contradicts its position on the issue, writes John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK, in a letter to Tony Hayward, the BP boss."

Environmental Law Prof Blog: Exxon Continued to Fund Climate Change Denial Campaign in 2006

February 14, 2008

Exxon Continued to Fund Climate Change Denial Campaign in 2006

"Most of us are convinced now that anthropomorphic climate change is based on sound, virtually unassailable science, that all but a few climate scientists agree with that assessment, that the questions to be answered now are:
how quickly and by what means to reduce GHG emissions,
what the inescapable impacts are of the GHG emissions already in the atmosphere and liable to be added to the atmosphere before we achieve carbon neutrality,
how to undertake the task of adapting to the impacts that are liable to occur in the next century or so.
This time last year ExxonMobil waged a campaign with bloggers to convince us that they recognized the reality of anthropogenic global warming and were serious about solutions.
Most of us are also aware of the intense disinformation campaign that was waged by the Bush administration and others with respect to climate change science. That campaign continues."

You may just be a pawn in their game"


Constitution- population 1790 was about 4,000,000 and just trying to survive: population 2010 is about 300,000,00 - world leader: Government needs to change.

I feel that there should be national licencing standards for nurses and teachers. The 50 different set of regulations and testing is not efficient and is a wasteful and requires 50 different sets of rules and officials. People are so much more mobile than in 1790. Drivers licences are different - you can drive for considerable time in any state. Example where bigger fed would be a benefit to mobile families.

From 2nd amendment
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

What if I want a new Virginia Class nuclear submarine along with a couple thermonuclear bombs? Not stated in constitution -how dare the federal government regulate it. This is just as valid as much of the complaining-just change the names to roads or healthcare etc. Our courts decide if it works - its not perfect but its the best we have.

Concerning taxes - I was a highway superintendent for 2 years (1983-84) (currently on Town Board). First question from some residents - when do you plan to fix my road? Second question - Why are my taxes so high?

I enjoy a good discussion, especially when it stays civil. It helps me understand others point of view and makes me rethink things. One thing I did get from going back to college at 38 years old was that before I went I was very confident in many things. By the time I earned a Masters Degree I realized how little I knew about so many things (especially my major, Mathematics) (I earned all A's in my second try at college - first attempt I earned C's) Point is as a C student I was quite confident that I knew the answers to many things and after becoming an A student I lost a lot of that. All that college biology, chemistry and physics taught me was that I knew just enough to be dangerous. I do feel like I can smell a skunk though. Now I question things, try to find good data and then apply my prejudices. Very few things are black and white - lots of grey out there. (like just what does "arms" mean)

Take care,
Loren

Vis a Vis Glenn Beck
Glenn Beck is the enemy Du jour of the left due to the fact that he is effective. If you can point out where he is factually wrong, I will agree with you. But he is more right than wrong.
Just as with Joe McCarthy, Beck is scoring heavy points against the progressives. His showing of actual clips of George Bernard Shaw, are a masterstroke, the most effective method of exposing the racist/elitist agenda that is the left's. If you think I am being over the top, I suggest that you watch some of Shaw's comments(Spoken by him) on Youtube. Not out of context, misquoted, but spoken by him, the conclusion is inescapable.

 

[Loren49]

Sorry FallbrockFarmer - didn't see you're post - first off that's how I feel at 5am after turning in at around 8pm. No problem -lots of reading

I believe if you check, I have not stated support for the recent exaggerated conclusions. I've read of and am disappointed by the sloppy editing and peer review. I don't buy those conclusions. I am quite skeptical of the "carbon credits" issue. These errors (deliberate or not) have nothing to do with the science that has been going on for many years. There have been thousands of temperatures taken from many places over a long period. What's the chance it is all perfect? How much good science have the deniers done and for how long? I agree that money could tempt people to do all sorts of things. Assuming there is a possibility of a problem with emissions what would be the best way to fund the research? What group would be most likely to do the most honest job? (government, private nonprofit, corporations)

It just seems to me as too much of a dream that we can spew 30 billion (30,000,000,000) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year with no significant consequences at some point. (66,000,000,000,000 pounds) This is carbon that has been locked up for lots of years. Earth isn't that big.

Loren

 

[FallbrookFarmer]

Sorry FallbrockFarmer - didn't see you're post - first off that's how I feel at 5am after turning in at around 8pm. No problem -lots of reading

I believe if you check, I have not stated support for the recent exaggerated conclusions. I've read of and am disappointed by the sloppy editing and peer review. I don't buy those conclusions. I am quite skeptical of the "carbon credits" issue. These errors (deliberate or not) have nothing to do with the science that has been going on for many years. There have been thousands of temperatures taken from many places over a long period. What's the chance it is all perfect? How much good science have the deniers done and for how long? I agree that money could tempt people to do all sorts of things. Assuming there is a possibility of a problem with emissions what would be the best way to fund the research? What group would be most likely to do the most honest job? (government, private nonprofit, corporations)

It just seems to me as too much of a dream that we can spew 30 billion (30,000,000,000) metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere per year with no significant consequences at some point. (66,000,000,000,000 pounds) This is carbon that has been locked up for lots of years. Earth isn't that big.

Loren

I think what we are doing here is circular logic,
We think there is a problem,
Then we should study it,
We studied it and found that there is a need for further research to reach a conclusion(and we need additional funding).We have studied it further and find that there IS a problem, and now we need further research(along with further funding)to find a solution.
Question: If the whole "hockey stick" research is suspect, which is the basis for most of the "problem" isn't the whole AGW argument suspect?

 

[SpringHollow]

Unfortunately, the source of funding can have subtle affects on the outcomes which is why most places require that a researcher discloses the source of funding. This is especially true where the result has a financial impact on a company's profits. Pharmaceutical companies will not likely pick a researcher who always finds faults with their drugs. An oil company will not give lots of money to someone who says their business is ruining things. An environmental group is not likely to fund a researcher who disagrees with them. So there is subtle pressure to coach the research so that it is favorable to the funding source. Much of that bias is removed with Federal funding.

Now i realize there are also the instances where funding is done specifically to buy the result. The most obvious is when they paid a dentist to write the article about the negative impact of the death tax (a term they also coined) and then had to create their own bogus journal to "publish" it. This was also done recently for some pharmaceutical research (created their own non-pier reviewed journal).

Ken

 

[Pilot]

Yes, funding sources can influence results, but federal funding does not eliminate that problem. With the politics where they are right now on global warming and the president having revenues from cap and trade included on the income side of his new budget, do you seriously think federal grants will go to those whose work questions global warming?

 

[Loren49]

Hi all,
Seems it makes good sense to continue to record temperature on a worldwide basis and to analyse the trends. I know that doubt can always be cast on the cause but this is not a reason to say we're free to put every carbon atom locked away into the atmosphere. At this point there are plenty of reasons to move forward with caution. I suspect big oil has more reason to undermine this work than big tobacco had for undermining health concerns. (Remember those CEOs at the congressional hearing) And they are using some of the same people. Where is the truth?

More important in my view is to decrease our need for so much oil and to become as energy independent as we can. By the way, domestic exploration would result in oil available to the oil companies but I assume that they would sell to the highest bidder worldwide. Unless someone suggests that the Fed should take over or tell the corporations to sell it here for below market value. I've wondered how this would be handled to help our thirst for oil.

Loren

 

[LMTC]

What is "big oil" and "big tobacco"? Where do they live? Where can I go to see them? What do they like for breakfast? Do they have to wait in line at the airport? Are they on the "no fly" list? Has either one ever won a grammy? An oscar? Where do they work? All this silly personification of non-persons is part of what confuses these discussions. I know who an individual is....I even have a fair idea what is meant when someone references "my doctor" or "my son's math teacher", but I have no idea who big oil or big tobacco are. Always seemed to me to be terms used to try to make people think of the boogeyman. If you're going to toss these terms around like they mean something, at least offer a very specific and detailed definition of what the term means. How about "big fear", "big government", or "big lie"? Do they live in the same neighborhood as "big oil"?

 

[Loren49]

Deep, well thought out response.

Loren

 

[LMTC]

So does that translate to no answer? You used the terms. What do they mean? Please define them....with specifics.

 

[Loren49]

LMTC - I taught school for a number of years with all sorts of students. I'm not going to play your game. Guess you win. Sad you couldn't find more to think about from the posts.

Loren

 

[MikePA]

Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. Saul Alinsky, Rules For Radicals.

 

[LMTC]

Ditto Mike. If he had a clear answer as to what those amorphous and ambiguous terms mean, it would have been so much more simple to just put it forth. Instead, I am ridiculed for raising my hand and saying "You just used a word/term I don't understand. Would you please clarify and/or define it as you are using it?" Glad my teachers were pre-NEA.