PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
Jesus it's like dodging the same boomerang tossed over and over by the challenged.
Do you guys have a script written by Barney Fife?
Hottest Spring On Record Globally 2014
- Thread starter PoloMalo43
- Start date
Jesus it's like dodging the same boomerang tossed over and over by the challenged.
Do you guys have a script written by Barney Fife?
You are a twatwaffle. But if we still had had karma I'd give you some for that Mexican Meteorologist.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
There are too many people scrutinizing the data for confirmation bias to be a factor. Your point about culling the outliers works with what you're doing; your data is all from one source, you used the same instrument you always use, etc. This is not the same situation as when you are mixing data sets.
Actually as I pointed out previously, there is a large push in academia to reduce the accepted scientific journals because way too many faulty and falsified papers are being published without proper scrutiny... beyond that several of the publications are outright refusing anything that refutes their point of view... and that cuts both ways in this particular debate... your refute mirrors the spin immediately put out when this broke though... almost word for word.
The data was published... already finalized, then it was back adjusted for this particular report... there are worse cases than this out there... calibrating to expected concentrations of Co2 rather than known standards... adjusting digital thermometers... hell lets look at the intentional placement of the ambient air monitors for particulate air quality in Pittsburgh... if you wanted average readings why station them directly downwind of the few actual coke and steel plants we have operational...
If it makes you feel better I can recite a litany of offenses the opposition to various air pollutant regs have done throughout the years... but if you go into this thinking its pure science without politics involved... well you are a naïve fool. Nasa is pushing for federal funding for mars exploration... they are in the midst of massive cutbacks... now this data suddenly fits the agenda that makes them potentially relevant again...
For the record the regs optimistically want to decrease America's CO2 production by 30%... America produces an estimated 6% of global manmade CO2... the actual reduction suggested is within the margin of error in these estimates... its irrelevant to the grand scheme of things either way... its also probably infeasible.. so we are going to knowingly handicap more than a third of the country's power supply, coming off a winter when the grid nearly failed as is, with only one real option to take its place and its the easiest one to disrupt... we are going to drive out all Industry we have left and make hyperinflation a reality... awesome... great plan guys...
And again... 30% of 6%
Ad hominem argument = Fail.
It's a logical fallacy. The published article with supporting data is linked.
RESPOND TO THE DATA, *******.
Your inability to do so is laughable. Contrary data published in peer-reviewed journal?
Pffft, it's the Koch brothers, I don't need to look at the actual data.
Do you fail to see how stupid you are? Jesus Christ, I have already taught you this lesson. If your idiotic response were appropriate, then every person reading your stupid comments and linked information could simply say, "Pfffft. Makes a living off AGW. I don't need to look at the data."
Or are you actually too stupid to understand the point?
Polo is clearly too ******* stupid to figure this out, so I will do so for her/it:
That is 1.8%.
One-point-*******-eight percent.
So if China increases its CO2 emissions by an equal amount - and they will, since they are building coal plants at breakneck speed - then the entire approach is a meaningless joke.
You really, honestly, genuinely are THIS stupid, aren't you.
(1) What do they teach?
(2) Why do they hold such position over the other numerous candidates for the teaching spot?
(3) How important is publishing to keeping the position?
(4) What do these people publish, to what audience, and in which forums?
(5) How receptive are these forums to contrary views?
(6) What happens if these guys don't get published for 4 years?
(7) What benefit do they get from publishing? [Grants to continue research, which is $$ for the school]
(8) What happens if the professor focusing on AGW fails to get grants and fails publish?
(9) What result does this confluence of factors have on these guys?
(10) How much of their respective income is therefore directly tied to grants, publishing AGW research, maintaining their "status," etc.?
Until you answer these questions, you remain a blithering idiot.
Okay, even if you answer them, you are still a blithering idiot, but one who learned how to use ******* Google.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
No what you fail to see(maybe the Christy and company Bukkake semen blinded you) is that none of the 'data' you bring up is actually that. Roy Spencer corrected a small mistake in NASA's data years ago that's about the only contribution deniers have made to the science.
All they do is take other peoples work twist it to suit their paid for position and idiots like you lap it up.
So (1) go to the cited article showing that 50% of global warming referenced is due to data "corrections" and (2) demonstrate that the point is wrong.
Then publish the findings, you dimwit. You know, like the authors of the referenced article did.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
So a better plan is to destroy the planet's habitat, destroy our civilization, and plunge the world into chaos.
By the way your #'s on CO2 are wrong. Including the one that you don't include but by implication link to our GDP, which if we do mitigate would be tiny.
If we do nothing you cant quantify the cost.(actually you can but I'd have too look it up. It's in the 10's of trillions)
Last edited:
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
Your idiocy is breath taking.
So you just assume what the other guy is telling you is true and run with it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
As of 2012 we emit 16.4 percent of the worlds CO2, the 6% is the methane and that would be about right as we are leading the world in fracking oil production and leaking large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.
Nice job on the math too, glad you made it out of the 4th grade.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
Correction if you follow that same link the 2010 table shows total emissions as a percentage where the one I referenced(2012) uses per capita.
So it would be 14.14% . It's moot because we have not dropped from 14 to 6 in four years, no way.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 2,147
- Reaction score
- 144
- Points
- 63
So if I read more of your posts then I will understand why they messed with the graphs? Thanks for the name calling, it makes you more credible. I asked a serious question, gave you a serious answer and I am now Barney Fife and a retard. Who wrote your script? Alinsky?
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 9,583
- Reaction score
- 5,866
- Points
- 113
As much as industry would like to snatch up these climate science teachers, they just can't compete with the salaries that climate science teachers demand. Industry, as well as everyone else, knows that the best and the brightest teach.
Truer words you've never posted.
Today's high is 80*. The weatherman said this morning that the record high for this day was 95*, set in 1966. JFC, the new Ice Age is here! Barges in the Pittsburgh rivers will be making like the Titanic an' at.
We have a real Hulk Hogan here.
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 8,127
- Reaction score
- 7,859
- Points
- 113
Excuse me, but that is a change. The climate has changed. We're all doomed!
14% is the total just for fossil fuel use... they may be factoring cement production in that as well... they often include cement Kilns..... 6.3% is the overall total production... so I think we are talking about two different things... unless your argument is that fossil fuel CO2 is worse than other forms of CO2..lol....
and even that 14.4% number itself is way off base for two major reasons... #1 a significant amount of coal plants were retired since 2010, moreover power prices have pretty much kept many from running save for in the most lucrative times... there was already an acknowledged a 3 to 4% dip in those numbers from 2011 to 2012, then another 10% dip after that...
Moreover those numbers are calculated using some stoichiometric calculations and also by using the actual the emission reporting data all these sources are required to submit... the issue is CO2 is unregulated for them. they only have to measure it (or O2, which can be used to back calculate Co2 or vice versa) for rate calculations. While the analyzers need to be tested for accuracy, the pass fail criteria ranges from 20% to 10% depending on the type of source. there are also alternate specs that allow these analyzers to read as much as 1% total off of the accurate RM readings Nox and SO2, which are both regulated and are tied to allowances, often must be reported in rate form (lb/hr or lb/mmbtu, ect.)... if say, a coal plant was reading 100ppm of Nox and 10% CO2, they would be reporting .220 lbs/mmbtu of nox... if they were to say read 10.5% of CO2 they would be reporting .209 lbs/mmbtu of Nox... about 5% less...lets just say I rarely find plants that aren't over-reporting on CO2, because frankly its legal and there to date is no penalty to do so...
For the record... the proposed rules we are hearing about were to slash 30% off of the 2005 emissions... we are 15% below that already, so we are talking about 15% from this moment and the overall total CO2 slash is % of our output... its miniscule... insignificant... Mats was already going to shut down the dirtiest coal plants... this makes it unreasonable to outfit some of the ones they were going to scrub...
Temperature for one area just doesn't count. Unless you're talking about Australian summer's.. Then it's legit.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
You're hung up on power plants and I guess that would be because that's your line of work.
I read somewhere that 51% of our emissions are from animal food production, now I know in that input process you have electrical energy involved but a larger percentage of that # has to be fossil fuel use. It would be tied up in feed production(tractors,combines,etc.) pasture fertilizer, trucking etc.
So our biggest problem is our love of meat(not you Deepthroattime clean that drool) I'll try and see if I can find a link to that # later. I can only go by what i read if you claim it's cement production or whatever i don't know.
I have to respond to Khan... I mean...Con... Well it's easy to confuse them(both bad Canadian actors)
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
I see you've recovered from your wounds and are back for more abuse.
Here you go:
See if you can find a cartoon to make this go away.
William D. Nordhaus is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale
Let's kill two denier arguments with one article.
A. There is a co-equality(financial) between genuine climate scientists doing real work, and hacks paid by Exxon/KochBros.
B. The regulation of our carbon emissions will ruin our economy, it's better to do nothing.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
A fifth argument is that mainstream climate scientists are benefiting from the clamor about climate change:
Why is there so much passion about global warming…? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question “cui bono?” Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.
This argument is inaccurate as scientific history and unsupported by any evidence. There is a suggestion that standard theories about global warming have been put together by the scientific equivalent of Madison Avenue to raise funds from government agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF). The fact is that the first precise calculations about the impact of increased CO2 concentrations on the earth’s surface temperature were made by Svante Arrhenius in 1896, more than five decades before the NSF was founded.
The skeptics’ account also misunderstands the incentives in academic research. IPCC authors are not paid. Scientists who serve on panels of the National Academy of Science do so without monetary compensation for their time and are subject to close scrutiny for conflicts of interest. Academic advancement occurs primarily from publication of original research and contributions to the advancement of knowledge, not from supporting “popular” views. Indeed, academics have often been subject to harsh political attacks when their views clashed with current political or religious teachings. This is the case in economics today, where Keynesian economists are attacked for their advocacy of “fiscal stimulus” to promote recovery from a deep recession; and in biology, where evolutionary biologists are attacked as atheists because they are steadfast in their findings that the earth is billions rather than thousands of years old.
In fact, the argument about the venality of the academy is largely a diversion. The big money in climate change involves firms, industries, and individuals who worry that their economic interests will be harmed by policies to slow climate change. The attacks on the science of global warming are reminiscent of the well-documented resistance by cigarette companies to scientific findings on the dangers of smoking. Beginning in 1953, the largest tobacco companies launched a public relations campaign to convince the public and the government that there was no sound scientific basis for the claim that cigarette smoking was dangerous. The most devious part of the campaign was the underwriting of researchers who would support the industry’s claim. The approach was aptly described by one tobacco company executive: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”9
One of the worrisome features of the distortion of climate science is that the stakes are huge here—even larger than the economic stakes for keeping the cigarette industry alive. Tobacco sales in the United States today are under $100 billion. By contrast, expenditures on all energy goods and services are close to $1,000 billion. Restrictions on CO2 emissions large enough to bend downward the temperature curve from its current trajectory to a maximum of 2 or 3 degrees Centigrade would have large economic effects on many businesses. Scientists, citizens, and our leaders will need to be extremely vigilant to prevent pollution of the scientific process by the merchants of doubt.
PoloMalo43
Banned
- Joined
- May 17, 2014
- Messages
- 784
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 18
And here is B... as in bitchslapped. Watch the usual deniers line up and tell us how they are brighter than the brightest minds in economics...watch the freak show kids.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/
Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong
A final point concerns economic analysis. The sixteen scientists argue, citing my research, that economics does not support policies to slow climate change in the next half-century:
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
On this point, I do not need to reconstruct how climate scientists made their projections, or review the persecution of Soviet geneticists. I did the research and wrote the book on which they base their statement. The skeptics’ summary is based on poor analysis and on an incorrect reading of the results.
The first problem is an elementary mistake in economic analysis. The authors cite the “benefit-to-cost ratio” to support their argument. Elementary cost-benefit and business economics teach that this is an incorrect criterion for selecting investments or policies. The appropriate criterion for decisions in this context is net benefits (that is, the difference between, and not the ratio of, benefits and costs).
This point can be seen in a simple example, which would apply in the case of investments to slow climate change. Suppose we were thinking about two policies. Policy A has a small investment in abatement of CO2 emissions. It costs relatively little (say $1 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $10 billion), for a net benefit of $9 billion. Now compare this with a very effective and larger investment, Policy B. This second investment costs more (say $10 billion) but has substantial benefits (say $50 billion), for a net benefit of $40 billion. B is preferable because it has higher net benefits ($40 billion for B as compared with $9 for A), but A has a higher benefit-cost ratio (a ratio of 10 for A as compared with 5 for B). This example shows why we should, in designing the most effective policies, look at benefits minus costs, not benefits divided by costs.
This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10
My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.
One might argue that there are many uncertainties here, and we should wait until the uncertainties are resolved. Yes, there are many uncertainties. That does not imply that action should be delayed. Indeed, my experience in studying this subject for many years is that we have discovered more puzzles and greater uncertainties as researchers dig deeper into the field. There are continuing major questions about the future of the great ice sheets of Greenland and West Antarctica; the thawing of vast deposits of frozen methane; changes in the circulation patterns of the North Atlantic; the potential for runaway warming; and the impacts of ocean carbonization and acidification. Moreover, our economic models have great difficulties incorporating these major geophysical changes and their impacts in a reliable manner. Policies implemented today serve as a hedge against unsuspected future dangers that suddenly emerge to threaten our economies or environment. So, if anything, the uncertainties would point to a more rather than less forceful policy—and one starting sooner rather than later—to slow climate change.
The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.
Last edited: