Auto industry supporters claim the EPA’s new dominion over CO2 regulations could be disastrous for the troubled industry. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) agrees. Well, they did. A freshly leaked Bush-era memo reveals the agency had a major beef or two with the EPA’s recent ruling that carbon dioxide is—and should be regulated as—a pollutant. According to John Broder of the NYT, the document concludes that the EPA’s CO2 ruling “was not based on a systematic analysis of costs and benefits and fell short of scientific rigor on a number of issues.” Complaints with the ruling range from insufficient proof of C02’s harmful environmental effects to the negative economic impacts of C02 regulation (there’s your auto angle again).
Under fire from Republicans who allege that the EPA ruling put politics over science, OMB director Peter Orszag tells Politico that the finding was “carefully rooted in both law and science.” “These collected comments were not necessarily internally consistent, since they came from multiple sources, and they do not necessarily represent the views of either OMB or the administration,” says Orszag. “In general, passing along these types of comments to an agency proposing a finding often helps to improve the quality of the notice.” In other words, this is not your smoking gun.
“A White House official said that many of the criticisms and suggestions came from holdovers from the administration of President George W. Bush and had been rejected by Obama appointees.”
There is no longer any doubt that actual science has nothing to do with the global warming debate (if it ever did). Why does it matter whose administration hired the persons responsible for the OMB memo conclusions, if the conclusions are otherwise scientifically supportable? (And I see nothing in the article that says they aren’t.)
It’s all a matter of politics and the extension of government control over the economy. Your wallets, gentlemen…
Just a minor speedbump on the way to completely pussifying the country. Don’t worry greenies, I’m sure this little memo won’t do much to stop your “right” to take everyone else’s rights away.
The memo also contains two phrases which should give everyone pause: “serious economic consequences” and “no demonstrated direct health effects”.
Forgive me, I am a bit dull-witted, but how is it again that the stuff that every creature since Adam has exhaled is now considered a regulatable air pollutant?
pussifying the country
What does this mean? And how does this tie in to an analysis of the science of the issue?
Forgive me, I am a bit dull-witted, but how is it again that the stuff that every creature since Adam has exhaled is now considered a regulatable air pollutant?
I’m holding out for Algore’s next Big Thing, a government-mandated remote tracking oxygen inhalation monitor that taxes your every breath. Only if you already pay income tax, of course.
Be glad we have the government here to save us.
You people should be content with destroying an industry that also destroyed sustainable land patterns. There’s no need to destroy the planet as well.
Dex3703
You people should be content with destroying an industry that also destroyed sustainable land patterns. There’s no need to destroy the planet as well.
Whether I should be content or not, you have not answered my question. How does our (supposedly) constitutional government have the authority to regulate as a pollutant a substance that occurs naturally all over the world, and has since the dawn of life? Just asking.
dex3703: “you people”? “sustainable land patterns”?
Sustainable for whom? Three thousand Sioux and a herd of bison?
Want to force people into high-density cattle pens and take away their car keys, you better come well armed. Worldwide, when people get a little money they buy themselves a car and head for the suburbs.
We just got there first. It’s good. And every now and then someone admits it:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2009/05/11/oprah-its-great-to-have-a-private-jet/
If I had her wallet I’d have one too. Maybe two. And an old P-51.
But that doesn’t have a whole lot to do with whether CO2 is a “pollutant”. It’s not an air pollutant, but it has polluted the political process.
Fascinating little piece of work here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/global-warming-causing-carbon-dioxide-increases-a-simple-model/
What happens when you move beyond the blind assumption on the part of the climate fraudsters that “all CO2 growth is anthropogenic” and actually look at real-world data?
Why does it matter whose administration hired the persons responsible for the OMB memo conclusions, if the conclusions are otherwise scientifically supportable?
It matters in the sense that the prior admin was not very good at hiring for scientific positions.
–
Just a minor speedbump on the way to completely pussifying the country.
I believe that was already done by the OMG TERRAR squad.
It’s rather ironic that “green” concerns like this and energy/resource conservation address issues that are an existential threat to American hegemony, something that the America #1 Patriot Eagle God Country society can sympathize with.
pussifying the country
What does this mean?
Well, it means that Government views itself as the solution to all your problems, no matter how small or great.
They’re regulating CO2 because it good for future generations and taxing transfats and soda pop because they’re bad for YOU! Soon you have or need no personal responsibility for your actions.
They’re genetic decisions made for you, you know… you can’t help yourself, so your government must.
And how does this tie in to an analysis of the science of the issue?
That’s easy. In the new administration, science and law are considerations but not ultimatiums.
See Obama’s recent statements regarding his considerations in selection of a Supreme Court Justice.
Got it? Now hold your breath, or we’re going to have to tax you. Oh, and you owe the Federal Government 12 cents for the fat and sugar that’s in the doughnut. Sin tax, you understand.
Forgive me, I am a bit dull-witted, but how is it again that the stuff that every creature since Adam has exhaled is now considered a regulatable air pollutant?
Water, in excessive amounts, is a pollutant. Imagine you live in a river basin that gets dammed and your house and land end of twenty feed under. Heck, drink enough water too quickly and you will kill yourself.
Carbon dioxide is similar. It’s not noxious in the sense that oxides of nitrogen and sulphur or particulates of lead and/or hydrocarbon are, but excessive amounts are a pollutant and can effect the environment. **
The biosphere has a limited capacity for changes without catastrophic (in the technical sense word, not the Michael Bay sense) reactions. Climate change resultant from unlocking tons of previously-locked carbon is such a reaction. Said reaction may not be immediately evident, nor may it universally severe. It’s possible that California or Holland might have more concerns about sea levels then, say Kansas or Uzbekistan. It doesn’t mean that people in areas that aren’t seeing (or don’t care about) the effects have the freedom to ignore the effects they might have on others.
**Oh, it’ll kill us all, too, but burning that much stuff that would take time
agenthex:
It’s rather ironic that “green” concerns like this and energy/resource conservation address issues that are an existential threat to American hegemony, something that the America #1 Patriot Eagle God Country society can sympathize with.
Let me get this straight – breathing is an existential threat to American hegemony? Or is it only if the breather is part of America #1 Patriot Eagle God Country society?
Got it? Now hold your breath, or we’re going to have to tax you. Oh, and you owe the Federal Government 12 cents for the fat and sugar that’s in the doughnut. Sin tax, you understand.
How about we call it what it is: bringing into account the externalized costs that organizations have been able to benefit from thusfar.
On the topic of sugars and fats: do you know why we use transfats and HFCS in foods, and why bad food is worse for you? Because it’s cheaper. Why is it cheaper? Because producers and consumers of it have not had to bear the real cost of bad food. The solution? Make bad food cost more to offset the effect it has on the cost of health care.
The suburban lifestyle is similar: it’s subsidized and the cost not fully accounted for. Well, fuel prices and regulations are a way to reconsider those costs, either by making people pay them, or avoiding their being incurred.
It sucks to have bear the true cost to live in a sustainable manner, doesn’t it? Excuse me while I cry crocodile tears for the Great North American Suburb Culture, killed by the costs coming home to roost.
Let me get this straight – breathing is an existential threat to American hegemony?
As an example for my prior post, while this kind of poor numerical intuition but proper attitude could land you a job in the prior admin’s OMB, unfortunately the ability to repeat popular misconceptions is no longer considered a qualification.
On the topic of sugars and fats: do you know why we use transfats and HFCS in foods, and why bad food is worse for you?
Ok, sure… but why is that YOUR business?
Ok, sure… but why is that YOUR business?
Because health care and its costs are ultimately in part a nation burden, ie. your money.
Pollution is general the flagship example of externalization because it’s easy to understand, and yet that’s apparently too difficult for some.
Water, in excessive amounts, is a pollutant. Imagine you live in a river basin that gets dammed and your house and land end of twenty feed under. Heck, drink enough water too quickly and you will kill yourself.
Could you identify some substances that would not qualify as pollutants under this rationale?
psarhjinian :
As I understand it, the Clean Air Act defines an air pollutant as “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.”
But CO2 was part of the ambient air to start with. It was not introduced.
The fact is that the EPA as an executive branch agency has only the authority to administer the laws passed by congress. When someone can show me credible evidence that Congress, in 1970, intended to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, then we get to the next step, which is how to do it. Until then, the question is whether it can be done at all.
Only by a tortured and politicized interpretation of otherwise clear language can proponents of the CO2 as pollution theory get past the need for congress to pass a law to get this done. Congress will never do it because too many members of the America #1 Patriot Eagle God Country society are voters. And there is the constitutional problem. What is the basis for authority to regulate CO2?
On a lighter note, at least I found out what happened to my coffee cans……
Because health care and its costs are ultimately in part a nation burden, ie. your money.
Only in a national health care system. If I’m responsible for my own medical expenses then what I eat is my problem.
Could you identify some substances that would not qualify as a pollutant under this rationale?
It’s not a classification for pollutant, but rather a refutation of the crackpot logic that it cannot be one.
–
But CO2 was part of the ambient air to start with. It was not introduced.
Most “pollutants” exist in the ambiance. It is generally when effects of their greater concentration incur damage that we have reason for concern.
Only in a national health care system. If I’m responsible for my own medical expenses then what I eat is my problem.
There are many reasons why this is wrong. For example, sick people are not productive, which has economic impact.
Despite what libertarian type may think (or rather it’s the lack of this that’s a problem), humans don’t live in little bubbles and only interact in the very limited ways they can imagine in their heads.
agenthex:
As an example for my prior post, while this kind of poor numerical intuition but proper attitude could land you a job in the prior admin’s OMB, unfortunately the ability to repeat popular misconceptions is no longer considered a qualification.
I am not the one repeating popular misconceptions here. All I am asking is for you to answer my question and provide a straight-faced constitutional or statutory authority for the proposition that the US government has the authority to regulate CO2.
But enough of this. Now, I have something to tell my wife when I am asked about my day. “Really tired, dear. It’s hard work existentially threatening American hegemony all day. Say, have you seen Bob? He asked me if I wanted to join the America #1 Patriot Eagle God Country Society. I’m thinking of joining, and he was supposed to drop off an application. They meet Thursday nights at the K of C hall.”
Could you identify some substances that would not qualify as pollutants under this rationale?
…and…
But CO2 was part of the ambient air to start with. It was not introduced.
The EPA’s point is not to eliminate the emission of CO2 as a whole, but to minimize the emission of unlocked, anthropogenic CO2. The same would apply to any substance that we crank out in unsustainable amounts
The point is not the substance (CO2, O2, pixie dust, love, whatever), it’s the inappropriate use thereof. I can’t see how people misunderstand this, except (as is demonstrated here) deliberately pulling a reductio ad absurdum to dismiss it.
I am not the one repeating popular misconceptions here
Actually you were, I mean it’s enshrined in the thread. I even corrected it.
But I’ll forgive give you because the last post was well played.
“How does our (supposedly) constitutional government have the authority to regulate as a pollutant a substance that occurs naturally all over the world, and has since the dawn of life? Just asking.”
That’s odd logic – plenty of pollutants occur naturally. Even radioactive gas. They’re just harmful in high doses.
The earth’s atmosphere has seen high concentrations of greenhouse gases before, and fluctuations in temperature. They didn’t destroy all life on the planet, but the changes weren’t easy on some species. From what we know, our agriculture and coastal cities would suffer expensive effects, maybe in decades, maybe in a couple hundred years.
I’d be happy to explain my understanding of the science behind global warming. I don’t have an answer as to what to do though. I’d like to own a rotary-powered sports car sometime in the near future, and they’re not exactly clean.
Only in a national health care system. If I’m responsible for my own medical expenses then what I eat is my problem.
Yes and no. The health of the whole population is important to your wallet unless you well and truly have a health system that goes by the credo of “Can’t pay? Then f_ck off and die.”.
Even then, the health of others costs in other ways. Unhealthy people tend to be poorer, poor people tend to be criminal. Crime costs money. The theory behind holitistic, universal health care (eg, not the patchwork that exists in Canada, or the even more threadbare patchwork that exists in the US) is that it costs less in net terms.
Proponents of private care seem to willfully ignore that this actually is the case, oh, everywhere it’s been implemented. Same with environmental regulations: people don’t prognosticate far and deep enough to really consider the net cost of continuing in an unsustainable manner.**
** For the record, I have. I know I’m guilty in some ways, but at least I’m acknowledging it and trying to improve. So saying “yeah, well, what have you actually done” as a dismissive isn’t just dodging the issue.
“Only in a national health care system. If I’m responsible for my own medical expenses then what I eat is my problem.”
An increase in childhood diabetes from HFCS raises healthcare costs. Those costs are passed onto you by the insurance company. It doesn’t matter of its public or private.
Goddammit, agenthex, you keep beating me to the punch!
I’ll yield the rest of the thread to you.
The point is not the substance (CO2, O2, pixie dust, love, whatever), it’s the inappropriate use thereof. I can’t see how people misunderstand this, except (as is demonstrated here) deliberately pulling a reductio ad absurdum to dismiss it.
I’m not trying to dismiss it; I’m trying to understand it. If it’s not “the substance”, but “the inappropriate use thereof”, then any substance, inappropriately used, can be considered a pollutant?
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
There are many reasons why this is wrong. For example, sick people are not productive, which has economic impact.
The government has an interest in your health because if you’re sick, you can’t produce? I thought feudalism died by the 16th century (at least in the West) but I guess we’re all just serfs, with the state as our feudal lord.
Frankly, the state has no business whether I produce or not, as long as I don’t expect my neighbors to subsidize my goof-offhood.
Here’s another description of the back story behind the memo: http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-13-omb-epa-sba-endangerment/
“I’m not trying to dismiss it; I’m trying to understand it. If it’s not “the substance”, but “the inappropriate use thereof”, then any substance, inappropriately used, can be considered a pollutant?”
I’d say so. Simple dirt can be a pollutant, for example, if its blasted into the atmosphere in a nuclear war in a sufficient amount.
I’m not trying to dismiss it; I’m trying to understand it. If it’s not “the substance”, but “the inappropriate use thereof”, then any substance, inappropriately used, can be considered a pollutant?
Yup. That’s true.
That’s why schemes to deal with this usually specify an allowable minimum, rather than going from zero. Even the truly nasty stuff (box jellyfish venom, cyanide, gamma radiation) has an acceptable minimum. The reason the EPA is stepping in is because we’ve passed the point where CO2 emissions were negligible.
The government has an interest in your health because if you’re sick, you can’t produce?
Since our “government” is in part the collective concerns of you and me, yes. Having a lot of poor unproductive people makes for a poor unproductive country, and I’d rather live in a place that’s the opposite of this. And by that I don’t mean move to a gated community.
–
I’ll yield the rest of the thread to you.
No need, there are enough popular misconceptions to keep everyone busy.
^ omg socialist. :)
Yup. That’s true.
See, I would classify (for instance) water in sufficient quantity to drown me as a health hazard, but not a “pollutant” per se. Which leads me to wonder: where is the statuatory definition for a “pollutant”?
jpcavanaugh cites the CAA, but the quote appears circular — an air pollutant is “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air”? Okay, but where’s the definition for “air pollutant”?
“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise)… standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in [her] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00007521—-000-.html
American f0cking law, bitches.
—
Okay, but where’s the definition for “air pollutant”?
In legal terms it’s usually defined similarly to the above emphasized phrase. I won’t bother to find the specific location, but it’s generally like: “known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects”.
cwp :
May 13th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“I’m not trying to dismiss it; I’m trying to understand it. If it’s not “the substance”, but “the inappropriate use thereof”, then any substance, inappropriately used, can be considered a pollutant?”
Maybe this will help.
http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
There is a lot of information there to help one understand a bit more about the climate, I think the more information you have to work with the better informed your own decisions will be.
There is a lot of information there to help one understand a bit more about the climate, I think the more information you have to work with the better informed your own decisions will be.
Speaking of science, I’d prefer to get mine from actual scientists rather than unrelated crackpots:
http://junkscience.com/Junkman.html
But who am I to judge what standards these conservative/libertarian (his own words) types use for “informed”.
“[…] the emission of any air pollutant […] which in [her] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution”
Circular definitions make my head hurt. Yeah, I’m pretty sure any air pollutant probably causes air pollution, so that would be “all of them”.
In legal terms it’s usually defined similarly to the above emphasized phrase. I won’t bother to find the specific location, but it’s generally like: “known to cause or may reasonably be anticipated to cause adverse effects to human health or adverse environmental effects”.
Because I don’t really feel like tracking down the exact definition either, I’m happy to assume for the sake of argument that this definition is essentially accurate. If so, it certainly covers carbon dioxide, as well as virtually anything else I can imagine.
covers carbon dioxide
So says the supreme court of the united states, and this is after the bush appointments.
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
And I prefer mine to be based on something other than flawed computer models, but to each his own.
I’m not interested in trying to win a climate change argument I only posted the link to give people another point of view and help people understand how complex our climate really is, everything cited on the link I gave has studies to back it why not take the time to read it before judging it.
I’m not interested in trying to win a climate change argument I only posted the link to give people another point of view and help people understand how complex our climate really is, everything sited on the link I gave has studies to back it why not take the time to read it before judging it.
This is a game that the anti-science crowd likes to play. Sorry but there are pretty much no actual scientists that agree with this garbage, similar to evolution.
There are plenty of materials from the scientific community available with tool you use to post comments, appropriate for all levels of education, even conservative/libertarians.
Here’s a link describing the history of coming to understand carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. The Table of Contents link at the top leads to other essays about global warming-related articles (like information on other greenhouse gases, and a history of climate modeling), by a guy in the field. It’s more science history than science itself, so you don’t need to know particle physics to understand it (but it helps – and I just mean first-year physics stuff, like spectral lines).
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
“This is a game that the anti-science crowd likes to play. Sorry but there are pretty much no actual scientists that agree with this garbage, similar to evolution.
There are plenty of materials from the scientific community available with tool you use to post comments, appropriate for all levels of education, even conservative/libertarians.”
This isn’t a left/right issue. The models used to determine CO2 is responsible for global warming are flawed. http://climatesci.org/2009/03/06/ness-report-on-the-lack-of-recent-global-warming/
or
http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/08/ipcc-analysis-mathematically-flawed.html
Anybody want to join me for a game of Global Warming Sceptic Bingo?
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/04/gwsbingo.php
BDB :
May 13th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
“Anybody want to join me for a game of Global Warming Sceptic Bingo?”
Actually this is more interesting but thanks anyway.
http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm
This isn’t a left/right issue.
It is. It’s a way to game ignorant people, and there is only one movement in the US so embroiled in promoting ignorance that it would do something so cynical.
For example, for your last link:
http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Peter_Dietze
BTW, the main question I have for you is how much more wasted effort in playing this game do you feel is necessary to convince a member of of the deniers club that they are completely and utterly wrong and apologize with cap in hand?
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 7:10 pm
“It is. It’s a way to game ignorant people…”
I think that can be said to be true from both sides of the issue in all honesty. Everyone has a stake in this.
It appears there were a lot of official reviewers here’s another one who’s been a member since the panels inception http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
and this one http://globalwarming-arclein.blogspot.com/2008/08/ipcc-analysis-mathematically-flawed.html which I posted above provides a look at the math in the IPCC study and found several flaws in the IPCC model, the studies are listed if you care to look them up. Here’s one of them http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
What I see is a bunch of people finding flaws in current climate models (and yes, there are certainly holes in our knowledge, especially when it comes to clouds) instead of developing their own that show different results. So basically, they’re refining the models we already have, and the results they give slowly inch closer and closer to the real answer. And they’re still inching in the same direction (confirming anthropogenic global warming).
I think that can be said to be true from both sides of the issue in all honesty.
No it is not. This is simply a lie. I don’t mind repeating this point. The quoted statement is a lie.
The essence of the lie is to keep thrown up crap in with expectation that scientist would come refute it, then falsely frame this as a “debate”. These claims are not published by working scientists and contribute nothing to science.
The “mathematical” analysis you have published is a by a british politician / business consultant.
Vincent Gray is a coal chemist.
–
You have still yet to answer my question. I’ll even help you out. If there’s a serious problem with Monckton’s paper, one that you have no doubt missed because you don’t seem to understand the monkeys that publish these things, will you grovel before me and issue an apology that you ever doubted my infinite and utter unerring wisdom? Or will you just keep on posting crude in hopes to continue the game?
—–
What I see is a bunch of people finding flaws in current climate models
No, it’s not even that, it’s worse than that. This is basic misinformation, just like the backstory behind the original post, which findude posted earlier:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-13-omb-epa-sba-endangerment/
carlisimo :
May 13th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
I’m sorry but I disagree with you. Proponents of AGW sometimes refer to other studies generally the IPCC study is generally recognized as the most authoritative body on the subject, the problem is that even the IPCC admits that the models employed are lacking significant data or the phenomenon is too complex to accurately model and others have proved that.
This study and similar studies are what is supporting the drive to regulate CO2 through the EPA or legislate it through congress (Obama’s cap and trade scheme.)
It seems to me that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the earth as is shown in this study. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
The IPCC study is fatally flawed and unreliable for use in the manner governments are trying to use it in. Allowing the EPA to regulate CO2 or the federal government to legislate it is unwise without a much more solid leg to stand on.
It seems to me that there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing (or will in the foreseeable future cause) catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.
Now the truth comes out. There was never any intent to become even marginally educated on the subjected, but only to dodge the debate/question and post more and more crap links in the hopes of deceiving the public just as I accurately predicted.
I rest my case.
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
“No it is not. This is simply a lie. I don’t mind repeating this point. The quoted statement is a lie.”
I have yet to see anyone prove that.
“Vincent Gray is a coal chemist.”
And what does Vincent Gray have to do with it? The article the blogs author (who only identifies him/herself as arclein) was speaking of was written by Roger F. Gay.
“You have still yet to answer my question.”
That’s because I chose to ignore it. I’m not interested in a pissing match.
“This is basic misinformation….”
Again I disagree with you.
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
“Now the truth comes out. There was never any intent to become even marginally educated on the subjected, but only to dodge the debate/question and post more and more crap links in the hopes of deceiving the public just as I accurately predicted.
I rest my case.”
I am always open to new research and ideas. If you have any studies that aren’t based on the IPCC study and are not based on flawed computer models I would be more than happy to read them.
I have yet to see anyone prove that.
You are proof of it. Watch this:
And what does Vincent Gray have to do with it?
Gray is the author of something you linked to:
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
Which should prove that you don’t have the slightest clue what you’re linking to.
—
Again I disagree with you.
Nobody cares what clueless people think. I’ve thrown down the challenge in my question. Take the challenge if you dare.
—
If you have any studies that aren’t based on the IPCC study and are not based on flawed computer models I would be more than happy to read them.
I will not play the game. We can settle this with what you’ve already posted, if you are willing to stand by it. Take the challenge and apologize for clueless posting, as an example to all others of your bent, if I can show you that Monckton (which you referred to repeatedly above) is an idiot.
Yeah or nay, either you implicitly admit you purposely post bad “studies” or we’ll openly reveal it to be true, and all can learn something from this lesson.
–
btw, in case it wasn’t obvious, this is supposed to be a representative case of all agw deniers, so anyone in that club should feel free to help tony in the cause to “mathematically disprove the model”, which will only make this more conclusive.
CO2 is a major pollutant…so… the EPA will be knocking on the doors of CocaCola and PepsiCo exactly when?
Plant some trees, ride your bicycles and have a Coke. You over-concerned Polar Bear nabobs may want to opt for some 7-up…the original had lithium which, obviously, you need.
Christ!
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
“The “mathematical” analysis you have published is a by a British politician / business consultant.
Vincent Gray is a coal chemist.”
My bad I misread what you posted.
Apparently the IPCC felt Mr. Grey was qualified enough to be a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, If they didn’t feel he was qualified for peer review he wouldn’t have been on the panel. I don’t suppose his Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Cambridge University had anything to do with it do you?.
His argument is here http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1
“Yeah or nay, either you implicitly admit you purposely post bad “studies” or we’ll openly reveal it to be true, and all can learn something from this lesson.”
I purposely post bad studies?
I don’t purposely post anything I know to be bad and I resent that comment if something is wrong with Moncktons study then please do point it out.
“I will not play the game.”
Nor will I.
I posted before that I’m not interested in a pissing match, calling people clueless and being insulting is juvenile at best, if there is something wrong with any of the studies I have posted I’m more than willing to look at evidence that proves it and like I said before “If you have any studies that aren’t based on the IPCC study and are not based on flawed computer models I would be more than happy to read them.”
Apparently the IPCC felt Mr. Grey was qualified enough to be a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, If they didn’t feel he was qualified for peer review he wouldn’t have been on the panel.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php
Pretty laughable, huh?
—
I purposely post bad studies?
Yes. If someone had posted links that could stand up to the scrutiny of one search on google, then perhaps they can be granted a pass. At the very best this is willful negligence in pursuit of an idiotic position.
—
I don’t purposely post anything I know to be bad and I resent that comment if something is wrong with Moncktons study then please do point it out.
Again, to point it out unconditionally would only invite further bad links and waste effort. The problem here is not fundamentally one of ignorance. If someone only desired knowledge about the viability of a stance, the material above should be sufficient to show that the AGW denier position is craptastically dishonest, and any further association would lead to deserved mockery.
I want to demonstrate that being purposeful misleading has a cost, and unfortunately for you, you’re the test subject. So you claim you have an open mind, well part and parcel of that is being able to admit to being wrong and stop being wrong in the future.
So accept the challenge to be open minded, and you will learn why Monckton is an idiot. Then you can stop being led around by idiots and become a better person.
—
“If you have any studies that aren’t based on the IPCC study and are not based on flawed computer models I would be more than happy to read them.”
Of course climate science is based on models as science tends to be, and the IPCC report is a summary based on the cumulative research to that time. Misunderstanding these basics are conservative/libertarian/idiot talking points.
There are plenty of places on the web that address the actual science, at many levels, accessibly to anyone willing to read:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
I’m just glad that all climate change scientists are robots that can’t be influenced by grants, and other monetary donations from governments, special interest groups, and celebrities. I’m sure they’d NEVER be swayed by money to distort data. Just like some doctors NEVER recommend meds/surgeries to people that don’t need them. Oh wait, some do…. I’m also relieved that everyone here that believes in human causes of global warming all have the climate equipment and scientific knowledge (as opposed to website links, and UN memos) to double check these scientist just to make sure they’re not bending the truth a bit for monetary gain and job security.
Sarcasm aside, I actually like my “middle of the road” idea. Lets tax gasoline a little more, BUT use half of the revenue for oil exploration/petroleum producing algae, (insert other fuel producing idea), and the other half to invest in geneticly engineered vegetation that can consume more carbon/man-made industrial scale photosynthesis/(insert any other idea that removes carbon dioxide from the air). Now I know conservatives will hate the tax, and liberals will be deprived of something to bitch and whine about, or a constitutional right to take away for “the common good”, but in the end I think everyone would happy(er). It’d certainly be better than-my-side’s-100% right-and-yours-is-completely-wrong mentality most of us (me included) have.
I’m just glad that all climate change scientists are robots that can’t be influenced by grants, and other monetary donations from governments, special interest groups, and celebrities.
Science and its staff over the years has proven to be THE single most reliable innovation for learning about the world in all of human history. By FAR. Every pretender to the throne has lost, BADLY. So badly that some corpses are nailed up as an example to others to ward off unworthy competitors.
Given this, its critics should be very prepared in a challenge, in material evidence beforehand, and for the humiliation afterward.
–
It’d certain be better than-my-side’s-100% right-and-yours-is-completely-wrong.
Then you’d just be 50% wrong, so I don’t see the benefit. But I guess it’s better than 100% wrong.
Ok, to be fair, policy decision are often a trade-off and judgment call even when the science is clear.
THe science of today won’t necessarily stand up to the science of tomorrow. The science of Columbus’ time was that the earth is flat. The material evidence of that day was that because no one was able to see the earth’s curvature that the earth must certainly be flat. The disputed science of today is that humans are causing climate change. The material evidence is a few computer models, etc. Berating people who question this science is counterproductive to science.
I think the biggest gripe I have about global warmists, isn’t so much their belief in the problem, but their solutions (or lack thereof). You mean to tell me 2000 scientists got together, agreed on a cause, and the best solution they can come with is “Stop using so much carbon”? That’s it?? I don’t need 2000 parents telling me my 2 year old kid (the economy, my choice of cars) needs his diaper (carbon) changed and that the best solution is to stop feeding him. If people who believe in global warming spent half the time they spend trying to get rid of things that release carbon dioxide on actually thinking of ways to get rid of the carbon dioxide, they’d get a lot more support for their cause. But when the best solution they can come up with is neutering the auto industry, and an economy crippling cap and trade system, you can forget it. People wont put up with government lowering their standard of living, nor should they. Our elected official’s job is to enforce the will of the people and bring have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solutions to the table. If they can’t do that then eventually they won’t have a job.
I personally do not believe in the AGW theory as a proper explanation for climate change, but if we are indeed headed for a cataclysm then so be it. Let it come! I shall fiddle as the world burns.
The science of Columbus’ time was that the earth is flat.
This example is very poignant. Knowledgeable people of that period knew very well that the earth was round (and also knew its size fairly well). This was known since ancient times (Eratosthenes).
The people who thought it was flat then are the parallel of AGW/Evolution deniers today. They were the uneducated and ignorant. They are so ignorant in fact, that hundreds of years after columbus, they still think he discovered round earth.
–
The disputed science of today
There is no dispute. The “debate” is a fake one created by shysters as already pretty conclusively demonstrated above.
–
Berating people who question this science is counterproductive to science.
No, it’s exactly the correct solution. There is massive amounts of scientific material demonstrating the theory, and massive amounts of material disproving every single denier claim.
The only logical conclusion is that disbelievers are willfully ignorant and/or purposely misleading, and allowing that to stand or give it any credibility would be a failure of basic ethics. You can either admit to this, or take the challenge.
–
You mean to tell me 2000 scientists got together, agreed on a cause, and the best solution they can come with is “Stop using so much carbon”?
The point of science is to find the truth. These people spent considerable effort because they cared enough about the integrity of their answers. Any later discoveries generally result in minor corrections.
As for the solutions, I’m sorry they are not in the business of selling cure-all snake oil. There is the cold hard truth and there is make-belief, and I’m sorry if the latter makes you more comfortable.
@agenthex,
The The science of Columbus’ time… rant was the best I have seen from you in this thread. I have disagreed with most of what you said but I almost posted just for this. So +1 there.
It’d certain be better than-my-side’s-100% right-and-yours-is-completely-wrong.
Then you’d just be 50% wrong, so I don’t see the benefit. But I guess it’s better than 100% wrong.
Ok, to be fair, policy decision are often a trade-off and judgment call even when the science is clear.
I think most scientists agree with the Global Warming data and the potential problems it creates. I think the level is where disagreement comes in. Throw in the disinformation provided by those who stand to lose out, and the general possibility for error in the data and it is not hard for the average citizen to be skeptable. All I’m sayin’ is…Your all or nothing attitude does not help your arguement. You can’t call someone close minded just because he disagrees with you. That is the very definition. -1 there.
As for as CO2 being a pollutant by definition, your definition is flawed. If that is the case, then rain is a pollutant every time excess rain causes a flood. -1 Keep plugging though!
“This is a game that the anti-science crowd likes to play. Sorry but there are pretty much no actual scientists that agree with this garbage, similar to evolution.”
Then you need to get out more.
“Vincent Gray is a coal chemist.”
Last time I checked Chemistry was in the realm of science. If you want to say he has a monetary incentive to pooh-pooh global warming I will submit to you that many scientists have the same incentive to promote it. It gets them government (taxpayer) grants to conduct more studies and research. There are a lot of people in this for personal gain, like a certain whining Nobel prize winner (who when he was VP owned a lot of oil company stock).
agenthex :
May 13th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
“I want to demonstrate that being purposeful misleading has a cost, and unfortunately for you, you’re the test subject.”
That’s twice you’ve said I was being purposely misleading, not only is that rude it’s inacurate.
“I don’t purposely post anything I know to be bad and I resent that comment if something is wrong with Moncktons study then please do point it out.
Again, to point it out unconditionally would only invite further bad links and waste effort.”
That’s pretty much what I thought you would say.
I told you before at least twice that I’m not interested in a pissing match what I posted was for people to read if they choose to and get the other side of the coin, it seems to me that one can make a more informed decision by having all the information available both for and against the work done, character assassination doesn’t impress me because it doesn’t disprove the actual work done.
Here’s is Mr. Moncktons work http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm if you care to point out exactly where and how he is wrong I would be willing to listen. In fact, if you care to point out exactly how and why any of the other research against the IPCC study is wrong I’m sure most of us would be willing to listen. I’ve provided data showing the errors made by the IPCC study in the data they used, how they used it, and what they left out of the model, your welcome to show us all where and how that critical data is incorrect and wouldn’t change the results of the IPCC study.
For those interested here’s a link to several other opinions that relate to the errors of the IPCC study. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8 there are a lot of people in different fields that take issue with how the IPCC study was done and the conclusions they reached based on the data they used and the models they used to reach their conclusions, pointing that out should lead to better studies.
agenthex :
May 14th, 2009 at 3:31 am
“Berating people who question this science is counterproductive to science.
No, it’s exactly the correct solution. There is massive amounts of scientific material demonstrating the theory, and massive amounts of material disproving every single denier claim.”
I don’t think a large amount of scientists would agree with your statement, that’s why they have peer review and how science progresses. There are equally massive amounts of research that disprove or point out the errors in the studies view of AWG as based on the IPCC model, pointing out errors in methodology and data is how researchers refine their techniques and produce more accurate results, critical peer review is essential to good science, in any case to each his own I’m sure your “infinite and utter unerring wisdom” will guide you.
There are equally massive amounts of research that disprove or point out the errors in the studies view of AWG as based on the IPCC model
Just to clarify: that’s the normal part of arriving at scientific consensus. Where capital-S Skeptics go too far is in treating scientific consensus like courtroom histrionics, inflating disagreement over detail into invalidation of the whole concept like the worst caricature of a lawyer pillorying a witness.
There are equally massive amounts of research that disprove or point out the errors in the studies view of AWG as based on the IPCC model
There really aren’t. The skeptics view is a minority view.
The minority view may ultimately be proven to be accurate, but it is wrong to say that the skeptics view is commonplace.
Most of the most heavily touted skeptics material is NOT peer reviewed, but paid for by industry and written for American voters, bloggers and Republican congressmen. It is not generally supported by good science.
Most of the skeptics material is frankly BS, meant to prey on laziness and the tendency of many to only read what they want to believe As one random example, I recall a thread on this site when a poster was listing the titles of peer-reviewed articles that allegedly supported the skeptics’ position. Yet if you took the time to locate and read the articles themselves, you found that they often not only didn’t support the skeptics but actually did the opposite, with many of the authors being vocal proponents of climate change theory. My guess is that the poster who listed the articles had never actually read them or learned anything about who had written them, and that the list was copied-and-pasted from a blogger whose sources were not verified.
This has been part of a Big Lie strategy, which attempts to argue for the existence of a debate that isn’t occurring. Climate change is not particularly controversial within the scientific community. They argue about it as much as they argue about evolution, which is to say that they don’t.
Laymen on blogs like to argue about it, but science has made its peace with it and seems to be more concerned at this point with quantifying it. I wouldn’t confuse a politically charged debate among the uninformed with a scientific gap.
All I’m sayin’ is…Your all or nothing attitude does not help your arguement.
I’m sure people who are in the wrong don’t like it because they want to hold out false hope that perhaps they can at least be partially correct. After all, they are determined in their self conviction, right?
Unfortunately for them, science is not determined by self conviction.
—
As for as CO2 being a pollutant by definition, your definition is flawed.
I only posted the legal definition because someone asked for it. Notice that it has been agreed to by the bush appointee Supreme Court, a great source of embarrassment for the last admin.
I don’t think a large amount of scientists would agree with your statement, that’s why they have peer review and how science progresses. There are equally massive amounts of research that disprove or point out the errors in the studies view of AWG as based on the IPCC model,
What you have is not “peer review”, it’s simply anti-science propaganda. The “research” you speak of does not exist, which is why it is a lie. The pages you link to don’t even make any scientific sense, but you don’t care because they support your massive ignorance.
You will not take the challenge because you quite well know they are lies. Otherwise you should have no qualm about standing behind your assertions. But you won’t.
–
There really aren’t. The skeptics view is a minority view.
That is giving them far too much credit. The links by tony are simply not scientific material. They are written in this pseudo-scientific manner to fool ignorant people, which is why no one will even dignify them with a peer review.
Remember this is best stuff they have. I’ve offered to show that the author of the only really technical paper above is an idiot, but on the condition that the deniers accept that the assertions they base off it is therefore equally if not more idiotic as would logically follow. Otherwise they will predictably squirm away as charlatans generally do.
Of course, they’ll keep dodging this because they know this to be true, but don’t want to stop their anti-science crusade.
Last time I checked Chemistry was in the realm of science. If you want to say he has a monetary incentive to pooh-pooh global warming I will submit to you that many scientists have the same incentive to promote it.
I’m saying he don’t even work in the realm of study, and his last peer reviewed paper was couple decades ago in a completely different field. And he obviously has no qualm against lying about credentials.
Remember this is the best they have, versus thousands of actual practicing scientists.
I don’t know if I’m not emphasizing this point enough or what. This “debate” is exactly one between scientists and idiots.
People should be laughing and pointing because the idiots, in typical idiot fashion, don’t realize they have no idea what they’re doing.
@psarhjinian :
May 14th, 2009 at 11:16 am
@Pch101 :
May 14th, 2009 at 11:27 am
Thank you for your non-abusive replies.
@psarhjinian :
I don’t think the majority of skeptics are trying to invalidate the whole concept, from what I’ve read so far they are trying to point out problems with the models used and errors in the results.
@Pch101 :
I appreciate your opinion. I agree that Climate change is not particularly controversial within the scientific community, I think scientists proved long ago that our climate does change, for example at one time New York was under a mile of ice and the Sahara desert was once a lush jungle.
I don’t disagree that it’s possible that some work is biased by different industries but the same can be said for proponents of CO2 based AGW. The UN and several other experts stand to lose a lot if they are shown to be wrong. Would it not be better to have all sides of the story?
It’s entirely possible there is some truth in the IPCC study but after 4 or 5 series of reviews people are still finding flaws in the research which suggests to me that the work needs to be reexamined before governments go making decisions based on it.
Since my “inflammatory” post got removed, I’ll just comment briefly on the strategy of deniers.
–
from what I’ve read so far they are trying to point out problems with the models used and errors in the results.
The reports referred to are fake ones. This is because most people do not have the background to evaluate the material, thus the primary deniers are take advantage of people’s ignorance.
Just like with evolution, they are asking for equal time for demonstrably false material. Judge for yourselves the reaction this sort of despicable behavior deserves.
–
It’s entirely possible there is some truth in the IPCC study but after 4 or 5 series of reviews people are still finding flaws in the research which suggests to me that the work needs to be reexamined before governments go making decisions based on it.
Notice the repetition of assertions that someone (me I this case) have already offered to disprove, without any binding interest in the truth. The general idea is if one fake claim is refuted, they bring up another one and so on, which is why binding deniers to specific claims is important.
It’s clear the best deniers can offer is an “opinion”, ones that are clearly and easily refuted, in hopes that the repetition and sheer volume of garbage will sway readers more than evidence.
As for monckton’s supposed “mathematical” proof, it’s quite littered with deliberate errors.
This one major numerical error:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php?utm_source=sbhomepage&utm_medium=link&utm_content=channellink
But in a brief scan there’s an even more idiotic one. Here’s what he claims as a primary finding:
The IPCC overstates the value of the base climate sensitivity parameter for a similar reason. Indeed, its methodology would in effect repeal the fundamental equation of radiative transfer (Eqn. 18), yielding the impossible result that at every level of the atmosphere ever-smaller forcings would induce ever-greater temperature increases, even in the absence of any temperature feedbacks.
What is Equation 18? Its Stefan-Boltzmann black body equation, which is transfer through a vacuum, which is not quite what an atmosphere is.
It’s terribly revealing of his ignorance since even looking up “the fundamental equation of radioactive transfer” on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_transfer) would reveal what is used for basic atmospheric calcs.
As for more fake reports from the same author: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/
—
So, I think it’s pretty clear that the guy’s an idiot, AND a pathological liar, and that is best evidence the AGW deniers can come up with.