Climate change and other predictions of Imminent Doom

Advances in the investigation of the physical universe we live in.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Doc wrote:The insidious danger of "PENIS CHANGE" and other things

http://nypost.com/2015/08/15/ignore-the ... -hysteria/
Ignore the dire warnings about our lives because it’s just hysteria


By Kyle Smith

August 15, 2015 | 4:05pm

. . .

Bailey believes apocalyptic forecasts were off-base, but after an international treaty phased out the CFCs, French researchers reported in 2013 that the ozone layer is recovering.

So will global warming, a much more complicated issue than CFCs, be resolved by cooperation or ingenuity? Ask yourself which science has seen more breakthroughs in the last few decades — political science or technology.

Politicians issue fatuous warnings about the dangers of global warming, which they vow to combat with even more absurd fantasies about immediately de-carbonizing the economy.

. . .
The funny fact is that the Antarctic ozone hole is still very much there

Image

Nearly as large as at it's imminent-end-of-life-on-earth peak.

However, apparently once CFCs were eliminated, it no longer poses a risk.

Certainly the histrionic media has moved on.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Doc wrote:The insidious danger of "PENIS CHANGE" and other things

http://nypost.com/2015/08/15/ignore-the ... -hysteria/
Just a little tooooooo late to help Bruce, er, uh, I mean Caitlin Jenner......
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Whilst offshore wind is expected to get cheaper as the industry grows, the cost of gas is set to increase due to a combination of rising fuel and carbon prices. Our bills are likely to go up in all future energy scenarios, but the government's own advisers say the best way to limit that rise is through increased renewable energy.

Greenpeace spokesman, September 2013
The gas price has fallen – which makes subsidising nuclear (and offshore wind) much more expensive. Cheaper options for cutting emissions – like onshore wind and efficiency measures have, for various reasons, been parked.

Greenpeace spokesman, August 2015
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

Image

The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits [pdf]
Abstract

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal
income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying
hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax
return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients.
We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income
Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all
credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the
program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile
has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the
distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude
that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds
than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Typhoon wrote:Image

The Distributional Effects of U.S. Clean Energy Tax Credits [pdf]
Abstract

Since 2006, U.S. households have received more than $18 billion in federal
income tax credits for weatherizing their homes, installing solar panels, buying
hybrid and electric vehicles, and other “clean energy” investments. We use tax
return data to examine the socioeconomic characteristics of program recipients.
We find that these tax expenditures have gone predominantly to higher-income
Americans. The bottom three income quintiles have received about 10% of all
credits, while the top quintile has received about 60%. The most extreme is the
program aimed at electric vehicles, where we find that the top income quintile
has received about 90% of all credits. By comparing to previous work on the
distributional consequences of pricing greenhouse gas emissions, we conclude
that tax credits are likely to be much less attractive on distributional grounds
than market mechanisms to reduce GHGs.
This seems a little misleading. There are more poor people than there are rich people. "We" all are going to be living on a better planet.

So maybe if you adjust the data per population, rather than income, it would be a lot more equitable...... right?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12586
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Doc »

Image
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

The over-the-top mm climate change claims now reek of rank desperation:

http://www.breitbart.com/national-secur ... te-change/
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
Ammianus
Posts: 306
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 1:38 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Ammianus »

Ooohh La La!

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092 ... al-warming
At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

"Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed," Black said, in the written summary of his 1978 talk.

His presentations reflected uncertainty running through scientific circles about the details of climate change, such as the role the oceans played in absorbing emissions. Still, Black estimated quick action was needed. "Present thinking," he wrote in the 1978 summary, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.

Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

This untold chapter in Exxon's history, when one of the world's largest energy companies worked to understand the damage caused by fossil fuels, stems from an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News. ICN's reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon's innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The documents record budget requests, research priorities, and debates over findings, and reveal the arc of Exxon's internal attitudes and work on climate and how much attention the results received.

Exxon: The Road Not Taken
Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago
Top executives were warned of possible catastrophe from greenhouse effect, then led efforts to block solutions.
By Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer
Sep 16, 2015
Exxon Experiment
Exxon's Richard Werthamer (right) and Edward Garvey (left) are aboard the company's Esso Atlantic tanker working on a project to measure the carbon dioxide levels in the ocean and atmosphere. The project ran from 1979 to 1982. (Credit: Richard Werthamer)


At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity.

"In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon's Management Committee, according to a written version he recorded later.

It was July 1977 when Exxon's leaders received this blunt assessment, well before most of the world had heard of the looming climate crisis.

A year later, Black, a top technical expert in Exxon's Research & Engineering division, took an updated version of his presentation to a broader audience. He warned Exxon scientists and managers that independent researchers estimated a doubling of the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit), and as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) at the poles. Rainfall might get heavier in some regions, and other places might turn to desert.

"Some countries would benefit but others would have their agricultural output reduced or destroyed," Black said, in the written summary of his 1978 talk.

His presentations reflected uncertainty running through scientific circles about the details of climate change, such as the role the oceans played in absorbing emissions. Still, Black estimated quick action was needed. "Present thinking," he wrote in the 1978 summary, "holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical."

Exxon responded swiftly. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business.

Then, toward the end of the 1980s, Exxon curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day.

This untold chapter in Exxon's history, when one of the world's largest energy companies worked to understand the damage caused by fossil fuels, stems from an eight-month investigation by InsideClimate News. ICN's reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon's innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The documents record budget requests, research priorities, and debates over findings, and reveal the arc of Exxon's internal attitudes and work on climate and how much attention the results received.



Of particular significance was a project launched in August 1979, when the company outfitted a supertanker with custom-made instruments. The project's mission was to sample carbon dioxide in the air and ocean along a route from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf.

In 1980, Exxon assembled a team of climate modelers who investigated fundamental questions about the climate's sensitivity to the buildup of carbon dioxide in the air. Working with university scientists and the U.S. Department of Energy, Exxon strove to be on the cutting edge of inquiry into what was then called the greenhouse effect.

Exxon's early determination to understand rising carbon dioxide levels grew out of a corporate culture of farsightedness, former employees said. They described a company that continuously examined risks to its bottom line, including environmental factors. In the 1970s, Exxon modeled its research division after Bell Labs, staffing it with highly accomplished scientists and engineers.

In written responses to questions about the history of its research, ExxonMobil spokesman Richard D. Keil said that "from the time that climate change first emerged as a topic for scientific study and analysis in the late 1970s, ExxonMobil has committed itself to scientific, fact-based analysis of this important issue."

"At all times," he said, "the opinions and conclusions of our scientists and researchers on this topic have been solidly within the mainstream of the consensus scientific opinion of the day and our work has been guided by an overarching principle to follow where the science leads. The risk of climate change is real and warrants action."

At the outset of its climate investigations almost four decades ago, many Exxon executives, middle managers and scientists armed themselves with a sense of urgency and mission.

One manager at Exxon Research, Harold N. Weinberg, shared his "grandiose thoughts" about Exxon's potential role in climate research in a March 1978 internal company memorandum that read: "This may be the kind of opportunity that we are looking for to have Exxon technology, management and leadership resources put into the context of a project aimed at benefitting mankind."

His sentiment was echoed by Henry Shaw, the scientist leading the company's nascent carbon dioxide research effort.

"Exxon must develop a credible scientific team that can critically evaluate the information generated on the subject and be able to carry bad news, if any, to the corporation," Shaw wrote to his boss Edward E. David, the president of Exxon Research and Engineering in 1978. "This team must be recognized for its excellence in the scientific community, the government, and internally by Exxon management."



Irreversible and Catastrophic

Exxon budgeted more than $1 million over three years for the tanker project to measure how quickly the oceans were taking in CO2. It was a small fraction of Exxon Research's annual $300 million budget, but the question the scientists tackled was one of the biggest uncertainties in climate science: how quickly could the deep oceans absorb atmospheric CO2? If Exxon could pinpoint the answer, it would know how long it had before CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere could force a transition away from fossil fuels.

Exxon also hired scientists and mathematicians to develop better climate models and publish research results in peer-reviewed journals. By 1982, the company's own scientists, collaborating with outside researchers, created rigorous climate models – computer programs that simulate the workings of the climate to assess the impact of emissions on global temperatures. They confirmed an emerging scientific consensus that warming could be even worse than Black had warned five years earlier.

Esso Atlantic
Between 1979 and 1982, Exxon researchers sampled carbon dioxide levels aboard the company's Esso Atlantic tanker (shown here).

Exxon's research laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked "not to be distributed externally," it contained information that "has been given wide circulation to Exxon management." In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming "would require major reductions in fossil fuel combustion."

Unless that happened, "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," the primer said, citing independent experts. "Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible."

The Certainty of Uncertainty

Like others in the scientific community, Exxon researchers acknowledged the uncertainties surrounding many aspects of climate science, especially in the area of forecasting models. But they saw those uncertainties as questions they wanted to address, not an excuse to dismiss what was increasingly understood.

"Models are controversial," Roger Cohen, head of theoretical sciences at Exxon Corporate Research Laboratories, and his colleague, Richard Werthamer, senior technology advisor at Exxon Corporation, wrote in a May 1980 status report on Exxon's climate modeling program. "Therefore, there are research opportunities for us."

When Exxon's researchers confirmed information the company might find troubling, they did not sweep it under the rug.

"Over the past several years a clear scientific consensus has emerged," Cohen wrote in September 1982, reporting on Exxon's own analysis of climate models. It was that a doubling of the carbon dioxide blanket in the atmosphere would produce average global warming of 3 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees C (equal to 5 degrees Fahrenheit plus or minus 1.7 degrees F).

"There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth's climate," he wrote, "including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere."

He warned that publication of the company's conclusions might attract media attention because of the "connection between Exxon's major business and the role of fossil fuel combustion in contributing to the increase of atmospheric CO2."
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

They should instead spent some time learning some basic physics*:

Image

Image

The energy absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere increases only logarithmically with increasing CO2 concentration.

*MODTRAN
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Heracleum Persicum
Posts: 11603
Joined: Sat Dec 22, 2012 7:38 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Heracleum Persicum »

.


Folks .. Nuclear power "Russian Roulette", Coal burning furnaces for electricity generation leads to suffocation of human kind, solar and wind cruel jokes

Only solution is LNG = Liquefied Natural Gas .. clean energy, and, lots of it

When all said and done, when dust settles, LNG way to go.

The rest just music

.
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
User avatar
Parodite
Posts: 5664
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Parodite »

yAW7EgVHrDk
Deep down I'm very superficial
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

Parodite wrote:yAW7EgVHrDk
This sermon would seem more credible if delivered in the original Latin.....
Last edited by Simple Minded on Mon Sep 21, 2015 11:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

A Touch of Papal Sanctimony?

By GEORGE WILL | Posted: Sunday, September 20, 2015 3:30 am
George Will

Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert’s indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary. They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak — if his policy prescriptions were not as implausible as his social diagnoses are shrill.

Supporters of Francis have bought newspaper and broadcast advertisements to disseminate some of his woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies. One example: “People occasionally forgive, but nature never does.” The Vatican’s majesty does not disguise the vacuity of this. Is Francis intimating that environmental damage is irreversible? He neglects what technology has accomplished regarding London’s air (see Page 1 of Dickens’ “Bleak House”) and other matters.

And the Earth is becoming “an immense pile of filth”? Hyperbole is a predictable precursor of yet another U.N. Climate Change Conference — the 21st since 1995. Fortunately, rhetorical exhibitionism increases as its effectiveness diminishes. In his June encyclical and elsewhere, Francis lectures about our responsibilities, but neglects the duty to be as intelligent as one can be. This man who says “the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions” proceeds as though everything about which he declaims is settled, from imperiled plankton to air conditioning being among humanity’s “harmful habits.” The church that thought it was settled science that Galileo was heretical should be attentive to all evidence.

Francis deplores “compulsive consumption,” a sin to which the 1.3 billion persons without even electricity can only aspire. He leaves the Vatican to jet around praising subsistence farming, a romance best enjoyed from 30,000 feet above the realities that such farmers yearn to escape.

The saint who is Francis’ namesake supposedly lived in sweet harmony with nature. For most of mankind, however, nature has been, and remains, scarcity, disease and natural — note the adjective — disasters. Our flourishing requires affordable, abundant energy for the production of everything from food to pharmaceuticals. Poverty has probably decreased more in the last two centuries than it has in the preceding three millennia because of industrialization powered by fossil fuels. Only economic growth has ever produced broad amelioration of poverty, and since growth began in the late 18th century, it has depended on such fuels.

Matt Ridley, author of “The Rational Optimist,” notes that coal supplanting wood fuel reversed deforestation and “fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food.” The capitalist commerce that Francis disdains is the reason the portion of the planet’s population living in “absolute poverty” ($1.25 a day) declined from 53 percent to 17 percent in three decades after 1981. Even in low-income countries, writes economist Indur Goklany, life expectancy increased from between 25 to 30 years in 1900 to 62 years today. Sixty-three percent of fibers are synthetic and derived from fossil fuels; of the rest, 79 percent come from cotton, which requires synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. “Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels,” he says, “are responsible for at least 60 percent of today’s global food supply.” Without fossil fuels, he says, global cropland would have to increase at least 150 percent — equal to the combined land areas of South America and the European Union — to meet current food demands.

Francis grew up around the rancid political culture of Peronist populism, the sterile redistributionism that has reduced his Argentina from the world’s 14th highest per-capita GDP in 1900 to 63rd today. Francis’ agenda for the planet — “global regulatory norms” — would globalize Argentina’s downward mobility.

As the world spurns his church’s teachings about abortion, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage and other matters, Francis jauntily makes his church congruent with the secular religion of “sustainability.” Because this is hostile to growth, it fits Francis’ seeming sympathy for medieval stasis, when his church ruled the roost, economic growth was essentially nonexistent and life expectancy was around 30.


Francis’ fact-free flamboyance reduces him to a shepherd whose selectively reverent flock, genuflecting only at green altars, is tiny relative to the publicity it receives from media otherwise disdainful of his church. Secular people with anti-Catholic agendas drain his prestige, a dwindling asset, into promotion of policies inimical to the most vulnerable people and unrelated to what once was the papacy’s very different salvific mission.

He stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies in which people and their desires are not problems but precious resources. Americans cannot simultaneously honor him and celebrate their nation’s premises.
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Simple Minded wrote:A Touch of Papal Sanctimony?

By GEORGE WILL
Yeah it does look like a touch of papal sanctimony from George Will.

George is doing terrible lately- his technofetish version- say George Will 2.0- can't stand Catholics, thinks we should kill the elderly, can't stand Republicans (especially if they win), is lovesick for Mark Zuckerberg who won't return his calls, and hasn't been right on a single issue since the Reagan administration.

George 1.0 was a...hmmm....loveable maladroit with a bowtie.

This one is just a sore losing pundit waiting for the world to die.

I'd say oil him up 'cause he's looking a little rusty, but well...AGW and all, can't waste the oil on crap.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
....
George 1.0 was a...hmmm....loveable maladroit with a bowtie.

This one is just a sore losing pundit waiting for the world to die.
Kinda like everyone else on the internet..... :D
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Simple Minded wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
....
George 1.0 was a...hmmm....loveable maladroit with a bowtie.

This one is just a sore losing pundit waiting for the world to die.
Kinda like everyone else on the internet..... :D
The 'everyone else on the internet' is a pretty cheap date who puts out...ummm.... :? ..a lot...., so you could take it or leave it.

George Will gets paid very well to be right and to wear his bowtie, and he's done neither is ages! :shock:

Maybe George should quit and euthanize himself as he suggested in his column a few weeks ago so as not to drain too many resources away from our building his machine utopia.
Simple Minded

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Simple Minded »

NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
Simple Minded wrote:
NapLajoieonSteroids wrote:
....
George 1.0 was a...hmmm....loveable maladroit with a bowtie.

This one is just a sore losing pundit waiting for the world to die.
Kinda like everyone else on the internet..... :D
The 'everyone else on the internet' is a pretty cheap date who puts out...ummm.... :? ..a lot...., so you could take it or leave it.

George Will gets paid very well to be right and to wear his bowtie, and he's done neither is ages! :shock:

Maybe George should quit and euthanize himself as he suggested in his column a few weeks ago so as not to drain too many resources away from our building his machine utopia.
:D Now that is more up to the napster standards I expect.

Sorry to let you down Bro, but your previous post just seemed like broad brush verbage anyone would right (Fruedian typo) about any pundit or person with whom they disagreed. "Pundit X doesn't like group Y." So I checked out.

I don't follow George Will enough to agree or disagree with you on his knowledge or track record. I suspect he gets paid to publish rather than to be "right" (politically "right" or factually correct?).

I only was aware of the article because my wife, who is Catholic, said "Here is a good article. Too bad the Pope doesn't stick to areas in which he has expertise."

Catholics, they're all like that! ;)

AGW as chic fashion rather than science. Now the pope has bought in. Time to sell your tulip bulbs!
noddy
Posts: 11335
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

in computing an ongoing problem with benchmarks that test performance is that manufacturers will tune their drivers and hardware to suit the popular benchmarks.

which brings us to ...


http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-involved
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the recall of 482,000 VW and Audi cars produced since 2009, claiming the company installed illegal software to cheat emission tests, allowing its diesel cars to produce up to 40 times more pollution than allowed.
heh.
ultracrepidarian
User avatar
NapLajoieonSteroids
Posts: 8413
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 7:04 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by NapLajoieonSteroids »

Simple Minded wrote:
:D Now that is more up to the napster standards I expect.

Sorry to let you down Bro, but your previous post just seemed like broad brush verbage anyone would right (Fruedian typo) about any pundit or person with whom they disagreed. "Pundit X doesn't like group Y." So I checked out.

I don't follow George Will enough to agree or disagree with you on his knowledge or track record. I suspect he gets paid to publish rather than to be "right" (politically "right" or factually correct?).

I only was aware of the article because my wife, who is Catholic, said "Here is a good article. Too bad the Pope doesn't stick to areas in which he has expertise."

Catholics, they're all like that! ;)

AGW as chic fashion rather than science. Now the pope has bought in. Time to sell your tulip bulbs!
Mr.Will does not deserve a finer brush when he can be perfectly drawn in crayon.

In your neverending war on collective nouns, I'm not going to hold your attention with every post. ;)

The pontiff is not an authority on the climate- questions of facts don't even fall into the 'infallibility' range if you are believer. And the Pope knows it too, which is why he used most of his environmental encyclical talking boilerplate and general faith and morals of Christians- his wheelhouse. So why is Will even bringing it up? Because people on the other side are crowing about papal support? The same papal support they ignore on any given issue like in the very same encyclical where he talks against abortion and birth control?

Fashion runs two ways here and Will knows about as much about the climate as the Pope. And unlike the Pope who does the popish thing and addresses the issue from his wheelhouse, Will throws a hissy fit about medieval stasis because he is self-assured that his position is the one true SCIENCE! and he, as a journalist trained in political science, has the authority to proclaim it so.

Why does he not explicate the political implications of the AGWers? Certifications, eco-taxes, environmental standards, the policing of water all suggest a state of emergency allowing those with political capital to seize control and create a power structure where everything is permitted and nothing solved. How would we operate freely under those who claim an authority based on nature, health and well-being?

There are a lot of questions, which don't fit neatly under the numerical ones this thread is aimed at*, that need addressing. But Mr.Will and his ilk do not touch upon them because at the end of the day they share the exact political ends of their opponents, and their antagonism against AGWers only manifests in their concern that their opponents will get to the goal line before they do.

*which is why I'll end my posting in this thread here- can't throw it too off course
User avatar
Typhoon
Posts: 27361
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:42 pm
Location: 関西

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by Typhoon »

noddy wrote:in computing an ongoing problem with benchmarks that test performance is that manufacturers will tune their drivers and hardware to suit the popular benchmarks.

which brings us to ...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-involved
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the recall of 482,000 VW and Audi cars produced since 2009, claiming the company installed illegal software to cheat emission tests, allowing its diesel cars to produce up to 40 times more pollution than allowed.
heh.
My speculative guess is that this the industry norm.
May the gods preserve and defend me from self-righteous altruists; I can defend myself from my enemies and my friends.
noddy
Posts: 11335
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:09 pm

Re: Climate and the Anthropogenic Global Warming Controversy

Post by noddy »

Typhoon wrote:
noddy wrote:in computing an ongoing problem with benchmarks that test performance is that manufacturers will tune their drivers and hardware to suit the popular benchmarks.

which brings us to ...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... s-involved
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ordered the recall of 482,000 VW and Audi cars produced since 2009, claiming the company installed illegal software to cheat emission tests, allowing its diesel cars to produce up to 40 times more pollution than allowed.
heh.
My speculative guess is that this the industry norm.
governments want less polluting cars, the people that pay for them tend to want sporty fun cars, one could argue the manufacturers dont have much choice.
ultracrepidarian
Post Reply