Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2011, 06:41 PM   #461 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 865
Thanks: 29
Thanked 111 Times in 83 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
I have tapped this before, but for the record I am a socialist myself. Maybe a mild one, but one all the same I do believe in democracy strongly as well.

I have seen the watermelon comment before (green on the outside, red on the inside) but I don't think its that simple. I don't believe there is a major world conspiracy to grab power for a new elite.
No one said it is a conspiracy. I am saying that it IS part of the Leftist agenda and worldview. There has always been a Left and Right wing of politics for at least the last century. In Europe it is often called Socialism; in America it has been called (actually deliberately misnamed) Liberalism. Recently, since Americans have largely rejected Liberalism (the label and ideology of the Left) the Left has tried to revive an older label for it, Progressivism. For the most part the Right has been pro-capitalist and the Left has been anti-capitalist. That aspect of it still applies. The same people who paraded in the streets under the red banners now often parade under green ones. That is the case and it is not a coincidence; it is essentially the same ideology or a different aspect of it.

Quote:
Instead I believe there is a trend, a tide if you like, in science which is following the research money and at the same time there are opportunists outside science (in politics for example) who are always ready to exploit the situation for their own ends and these are an all sides of the political spectrum.
Yes, but if you revisit my post about the Union of Concerned Scientists for example, you will see that they all have the same ideology and have formed a collective to support certain goals. It is no coincidence that it is also part and parcel of the Leftist ideology. It simply IS. Also disagreement or doubt of the viewpoint of the group is not tolerated. That is the hallmark of authoritarianism.

Quote:
The worry I have about things like Carbon Credits and so on is that the people who support this idea are quite happy to embrace the idea of imposing this on all of us without asking, including the suspension of the rights of the public to dissent. And that includes the non-socialist government we have in the UK at the moment.
Your concerns are over the authoritarian nature of the plan. I obviously share those concerns and find them abhorrent. But do realize that in any movement public acceptance is the first step, then political support, then empowering (electing) a government which will act authoritatively to enforce the idea at any cost. This IS a movement, its goals ARE political, and it IS supported and promoted by the Left wing of the political spectrum. Thus it is part of that ideology.

I can remember the authoritarian Right, and I was not supportive of their ideology. Now however, we have the authoritarian Left, which is even more repulsive.

Quote:
Its not a right or left thing.
It certainly is, but I can understand why a Socialist would downplay that it is.

If not, then why was it the #1 project of AlGore (the candidate of the Left here in America) to the point where he wrote a book about it? You won't find any on the Right (except for those Liberal Republicans known as "RINOS" - meaning Republican In Name Only) supporting it.

 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-10-2011, 06:42 AM   #462 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 535 Times in 384 Posts
I think thats a little too much reds under the bed for me. You are confusing me with



when I'm more like



There are several levels of socialism just as there are several levels of Conservatism, Libertarianism and even AGW Skepticism - ranging from its all an evil conspiracy to we just don't know. Painting a whole continent as being socialist is far too simplistic.

The concerned scientists are right to be 'concerned' about the use to which their research is being put. A number of scientists are worried about their own work being used by politicians of all colours.

There are also scientists who don't buy into AGW but keep quiet because it funds the research they want to do, and they get that funding by paying lip service to the belief.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
 
Old 01-10-2011, 09:47 AM   #463 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,873

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,388
Thanked 2,883 Times in 1,812 Posts
Tell me a little more about this person Lord Christopher Monckton? What is his background and training? He seems to be a favorite of anthropogenic global climate change deniers -- I wonder what his old boss, Margaret Thatcher says about anthropogenic global climate?
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/
 
Old 01-10-2011, 10:16 AM   #464 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
We know at a very high certainty that it is the carbon coming from the fuels we humans are burning is what is causing the current temperature increase. If we compare to the last time that the level was about the same as it is now, the temperatures were higher than at any time during human existence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
New paper indicates 80% of warming caused by... the Sun?

Read it if you dare, Neil.
Quote:
"A peer-reviewed paper [Krivova et al.] published in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that reconstructions of total solar irradiance (TSI) show a significant increase since the Maunder minimum in the 1600's during the Little Ice Age and shows further increases over the 19th and 20th centuries.....Use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation indicates that a 1.25 W/m2 increase in solar activity could account for an approximate .44C global temperature increase.....A significant new finding is that portions of the more energetic ultraviolet region of the solar spectrum increased by almost 50% over the 400 years since the Maunder minimum.....This is highly significant because the UV portion of the solar spectrum is the most important for heating of the oceans due to the greatest penetration beyond the surface and highest energy levels. Solar UV is capable of penetrating the ocean to depths of several meters to cause ocean heating." [N. A. Krivova, L. E. A. Vieira, S. K. Solanki 2010: Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 115, A12112, 11 PP., 2010 doi:10.1029/2010JA015431]
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Giant solar explosion in August 2010 may force NASA to start conducting real solar research, for a change

Seems this eruption disproved the standard solar model. Under this model, such an eruption, as was seen in August of last year, should not have happened. However, it did.

Oddly enough, the standard solar model is an input to these pretty AGW computer models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by t vago View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
But the uncertainties do not negate the main conclusion!
Which is that there's significant and credible doubt as to the accuracy or validity of AGW. Putting your conclusions in boldface do not make them somehow true.
It looks like I posted enough information in this thread that I can just start copying and pasting...
__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
 
Old 01-10-2011, 10:27 AM   #465 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,873

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,388
Thanked 2,883 Times in 1,812 Posts
I'm not qualified to judge scientific papers. What is the scientific response to these papers? What does Lord Monckton say about them? His theories seem to be the basis for many of the criticism of AGCC -- particularly that he points to some rock data in Australia for why he thinks that carbon dioxide is not tied to warming. I wonder why the Moon is so cold if it is the Sun that causes the warming; and not the Earth's atmosphere?

Virtually all the heat comes from the sun -- some comes from Earth's core, but that is not nearly enough to keep the Earth warm enough for life to exist.

The problem is the balance of heat gain vs heat loss back out to space. When carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere goes up, the temperature "responds" shortly after. There is no question about this fact.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Last edited by NeilBlanchard; 01-10-2011 at 10:33 AM..
 
Old 01-10-2011, 10:49 AM   #466 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
I'm not qualified to judge scientific papers. What is the scientific response to these papers?
You go look them up. I'm not doing your job for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
What does Lord Monckton say about them?
Who gives a care? I was firmly skeptical about AGW even before I heard about Lord Monckton.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
I wonder why the Moon is so cold if it is the Sun that causes the warming; and not the Earth's atmosphere?
Nice display of scientific ignorance, Neil. Maybe you should keep quiet about things you don't know about... Like the Moon, for instance. (daytime mean surface temperature is 107 C, or 225 F).

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Virtually all the heat comes from the sun -- some comes from Earth's core, but that is not nearly enough to keep the Earth warm enough for life to exist.
And how do you KNOW this? It sounds more like another article of faith that you hold.

Here's a question that you're not qualified to even look up the answer to, Neil. What is the principal greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere? I will give you a hint - it is not carbon dioxide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
The problem is the balance of heat gain vs heat loss back out to space. When carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere goes up, the temperature "responds" shortly after. There is no question about this fact.
Really? Then show me the direct correlation, Neil. Don't show me temperature graphs that go on for thousands or millions of years. BTW, show me something that counteracts THIS graph.

__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
 
Old 01-10-2011, 11:11 AM   #467 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Virtually all the heat comes from the sun -- some comes from Earth's core, but that is not nearly enough to keep the Earth warm enough for life to exist.
Here's another scientific bit of knowledge that you ought to study before you speak.
__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
 
Old 01-10-2011, 11:19 AM   #468 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
NeilBlanchard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Maynard, MA Eaarth
Posts: 7,873

Mica Blue - '05 Scion xA RS 2.0
Team Toyota
90 day: 42.48 mpg (US)

Forest - '15 Nissan Leaf S
Team Nissan
90 day: 156.46 mpg (US)

Number 7 - '15 VW e-Golf SEL
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 155.81 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,388
Thanked 2,883 Times in 1,812 Posts
It gets down to -153C at night -- hmmm, I wonder why it cools off so much at night? Could it be the lack of any significant atmosphere to buffer the losses? That is a 260C (500F) swing in one solar day...

The temperature chart is for a whopping 11 years. You can show just about anything with a tiny slice...

Here's the 160 years corresponding to the time we humans have been burning carbon fuels:



Carbon dioxide was ~270PPM at the beginning of this period, it reached ~300PPM in 1904, and it is ~389PPM now. Case closed.

I know about the tube worms around the deep sea volcanic vents -- I've mentioned them several times in this thread, I think. They are probably similar to the first life forms on Earth. When cyanobacteria came along (which I have also mentioned before), they started to split water -- and they released oxygen into the atmosphere. It was not there before.

A living thing transformed the atmosphere; making other life forms possible. Ever since then the balance of gasses in the atmosphere has depended on life forms and on natural processes, like volcanoes and weathering.

It took 100 of millions of years for these natural processes and life forms to stabilize the balance of the gasses in the atmosphere -- for 650,000 years it was ~170-280PPM. Temperature was in slightly delayed lockstep with the level of carbon dioxide that entire time.

Laws of nature and physics are unchanging.

Carbon dioxide is now significantly higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years -- and temperature is still in slightly delayed lockstep with the level of carbon dioxide.

Sure, other factors have changed, and the scientists have the best account of all of them that is available. These are the same scientists who have figured out many other important things about the universe around us; including evolution, DNA, plate tectonics, atomic structure, relativity, fusion of stars -- all of which are incredible and unknowable without all the other scientific fields.

You can't take away any one field of science and ignore the interdependency with all the other fields. If any science is "real" -- then it all is.
__________________
Sincerely, Neil

http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/

Last edited by NeilBlanchard; 01-10-2011 at 11:40 AM..
 
Old 01-10-2011, 12:20 PM   #469 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 1,766

The Karen-Mobile - '05 Dodge Magnum SXT
Team Dodge
90 day: 26.72 mpg (US)

Fiat Dakota - '00 Dodge Dakota SLT RWD Quad Cab
90 day: 16.67 mpg (US)

The Red Sled - '01 Dodge Durango SLT 4WD
90 day: 16.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 799
Thanked 681 Times in 437 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
It gets down to -153C at night -- hmmm, I wonder why it cools off so much at night? Could it be the lack of any significant atmosphere to buffer the losses? That is a 260C (500F) swing in one solar day...
See, I just KNEW you wouldn't even bother to answer my question about the principal greenhouse gas, Neil. You're becoming very predictable. What, exactly is it that buffers the temperature swing, Neil?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
The temperature chart is for a whopping 11 years. You can show just about anything with a tiny slice...
Nope. Try again. Smaller timescales give better resolution, and they show no such correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide that you keep trying push down our throats with no proof. You have to do better than "you can show just about anything with a tiny slice" to provide a credible rebuttal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
Here's the 160 years corresponding to the time we humans have been burning carbon fuels:



Carbon dioxide was ~270PPM at the beginning of this period, it reached ~300PPM in 1904, and it is ~389PPM now. Case closed.
Solar irradiation estimates from NOAA. First set here. (Are you going to claim that NOAA is now tainted?)


Total solar irradiance from 1855 AD to 1982 AD.

Diid Maankind caause the Suun to increase its ouutput duuring the tiime we weere buurning foossil fuuels, Neeil?

Second set here. (Well, Neil? Are you?)

Total solar irradiance from 1852 AD to 2007 AD.

Those curves above and below the main curve represent one standard deviation from the main curve.

Gee, Neil, looks like the Sun increased its output during the same time period as your precious graphs depicting the rise of carbon dioxide. Gee, Neil, looks like the two sets of graphs tend to track each other pretty well. Gee, Neil, looks like the Sun warmed up at about the same time carbon dioxide increased.

Gee, Neil, looks like AGW isn't proven.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard View Post
You can't take away any one field of science and ignore the interdependency with all the other fields. If any science is "real" -- then it all is.
Except for you, Neil. You can ignore solar data and papers that show the Sun is warming, and continue to blame Mankind for global warming.
__________________
The Fiat Dakota


The Karen-mobile


The Red Sled
 
Old 01-10-2011, 01:38 PM   #470 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,191
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,521 Times in 1,122 Posts
...the sun is the HOTTEST spot in our neck of the solar playground with a mean surface temperature of 5506C (9944F).


Last edited by gone-ot; 01-10-2011 at 05:47 PM..
 
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com