Conservative groups spend up to $1bn a year to fight action on climate change

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

GIGO immediately posted in support of the OP. I highlighted the problem with the billion dollar claim and asked GIGO if that was a valid criticism – and he replied that he didn’t think it was.

In other words, he made an error.

Wrong again, where you go off the rails is there, you are making an issue of me seemingly supporting the OP, I pointed out at the conflict of interest of the researchers from those think thanks, I guess then the point stands.

The “point” from volokh does include even more than just a statement to point at the flaws like **mhendo **made, it goes further to put a ridiculous excuse of what is going on.

I do have a higher standard about what “valid” means, that is all.

[GIGObuster]

I should say further that even if you have a point your position is really ridiculous, you are actually saying that a poster not insisting and even agreeing very early in a discussion that the OP had a flawed point, the poster is still guilty of a crime and that the fate of the [del]nation[/del] message board hangs in the balance if I do not agree on supporting your confusion and supporting your denial that my post#7 (that actually was separated because I did not edit in time) already agreed on what you are pointing out.

The conclusion to me is that we are indeed seeing the **Bricker **show, where an irrelevant confusion that was beat to death is discussed, so as to not deal with the issue.

[GIGObuster]

@IdahoMauleMan

Of course. Are you guys just realizing this, now?

Do you realize that if you follow the **Bricker **standard your post there is supporting people like magellan, and FX?

Nice to know that you go to bed with a supporter of scientific racists and then an anti-nuclear power and climate change denier cuckoo. And in the case of Bricker you seem to like poison mouths with a huge persecution complex.

[GIGObuster]

@magellan01

How in the world is he a coward? Or a troll, for that matter? Please do explain.

You did not read the moderator reason to put him on the pit to begin with?

@magellan01

Also, why should he start another thread?

You seem to also be an ignorant of the rules:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=7697100&postcount=4

Bumping your own thread
If you start a thread, and after a while think you would like more comments on it, you may be tempted to “bump” the thread by adding a post to make the thread reappear back at the top of the forum list. We strongly discourage this practice, but since the boards are so busy sometimes a single “bump” will bring about good results.

Our guidelines:

Wait until a suitable time has elapsed (at least, until your thread is no longer visible on the first page of the forum)
**Bump your thread only once
Do not make a habit of always bumping each of your threads**
When you bump your own thread, it is preferrable to include additional information relevant to the original post, which may encourage others to respond
Posting a thank you to those who responded to your question is not considered a "bump"

As mentioned the dirty trick he does is to recycle already replied to quotes from other posters to give the impression that he is bumping the thread to reply to a recent post. In reality what he is doing is a runaround to the rules, he is bumping his own thread repeatedly with that trick.

The cowardly thing is in not coming out of his nowhere-man circle that was thrown to the pit for obvious reasons. His continuous false discussion bumps shows us that he does not actually have really good ideas to offer in other forums.

@magellan01

And since you are this “man of science” why don’t you try to convince him his stance is wrong? Oh, that’s right. You already tried that and failed.

There you go again pretending to fool many into thinking that you do not know what a troll is and what to do with a jerk.

@magellan01

And your first paragraph here highlights your problem. You post on a liberal message board and you confuse the support you might get form the members here with being correct. This problem manifests itself also in the little game you play with cites. Your game os to find a way, any way, to discredit a cite that opposes you position, and embrace as gospel extremely biased cites like Media Matters. :rolleyes:

No, as usual you ignore that I do look at what the experts report, and the naive thing from you is to assign the same value to the opinion of jerks as well respected posters. I do know that scientists involved in the issue that post in the SDMB support what I report regarding the science.

[Gagundathar]

It is quite disturbing to see the OP’s assertions narrowed down to a single metric and then when that metric is disputed that the entire thread devolves into an argument about the dispute itself. The actual merits of the OP are being ignored entirely in order for a few people to ‘score points’ on the SMDB.

This is ludicrous, y’all. The very fact that there is an argument here is embarrassing. I would like to debate the merits of the OP, but I sincerely doubt that such can occur in this thread. That is sad, people. Truly sad and quite disappointing.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Gagundathar

It is quite disturbing to see the OP’s assertions narrowed down to a single metric and then when that metric is disputed that the entire thread devolves into an argument about the dispute itself.

::shrugs::

People opposing conservatives spend up to two billion a year spreading alarmist lies about climate change. Note that I said “up to”. Feel free to address my claim without narrowing that assertion down to a dispute about a single metric.

[GIGObuster]

@Gagundathar

It is quite disturbing to see the OP’s assertions narrowed down to a single metric and then when that metric is disputed that the entire thread devolves into an argument about the dispute itself. The actual merits of the OP are being ignored entirely in order for a few people to ‘score points’ on the SMDB.

This is ludicrous, y’all. The very fact that there is an argument here is embarrassing. I would like to debate the merits of the OP, but I sincerely doubt that such can occur in this thread. That is sad, people. Truly sad and quite disappointing.

Well, remember that more posters should come and make that point and I do thank you for that, however, since this is the pit I think this deserves to be discussed elsewhere.

But, if we can continue we should look again at what Scientific American said about this issue, there is already plenty of information to realize doing nothing is really dumb.

Now what to do? And here is where the discussion should had gone, many previous papers and research showed that the efforts to prevent a concerted effort to control our emissions are not small.

But here is the issue that many on the right are not taking into account: The efforts made by those think tanks and other groups are not bound to be ignored, if anything it is to be expected that all that good will done elsewhere is going to be dismissed because they insisted on supporting a clearly ignorant idea and also supported clearly ignorant people in positions of power and to get into those positions.

The investigation of that is very important, and not even a flawed paper is enough to overcome what was found before.

[Ludovic]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

::shrugs::

People opposing conservatives spend up to two billion a year spreading alarmist lies about climate change. Note that I said “up to”.

This is quite true. “Up to” may be “zero”.

[GIGObuster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

::shrugs::

People opposing conservatives spend up to two billion a year spreading alarmist lies about climate change. Note that I said “up to”. Feel free to address my claim without narrowing that assertion down to a dispute about a single metric.

Nah, as the subject at hand shows the real alarmism comes from those think tanks, specially the ones that claim that the economy would go down if the EPA enforces new regulations or if the real price to pay for dumping CO2 in the atmosphere is added to it.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.8374,y.2010,no.1,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

There have been two interruptions (pauses, if you will) in the rise of global average temperature since 1956, and of course, Earth’s climate is influenced by more than just CO2. Other trace gases and black carbon warm the climate, and aerosols cool it. On a larger scale, the astronomical theory of orbital influences was revived circa 1976, and climate variation attributed to such factors as ENSO, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and solar activity (or the lack thereof) are now being widely discussed. Still, more than 50 years later, scientists agree that the uncontrolled experiment pointed out by Plass in 1956 has been verified, and a warmer future caused by the radiative effects of CO2 is in store. The cutting edge question now is, What to do about it?

Indeed, going back to seeding doubts about the most likely outcomes we will very likely get if we do not curb our emissions is not valid when the “science” they claim to be valid continues to get things wrong and fails tests. **Experimental **data and evidence has confirmed many times over what we are doing to the atmosphere.

If think tanks are happy to taint all other efforts in their zeal to prevent change based on unsupported tripe, they are welcome to that and be discredited.

[watchwolf49]

@watchwolf49

You don’t honestly believe that Oxygen and Nitrogen are radiatively inert at Earth’s blackbody radiation levels

I’m going to have to retract this statement. Upon further review, I believe it’s only partially correct. It is certainly true at the Earth’s surface, but Pless specified the top of the atmosphere. If memory serves me, the temperature there is around 1500ºC to 2000ºC. That would push part of the blackbody radiation curve into the visible portions of the spectrum, where indeed both N2 and O2 are radiatively inert.

The lesson here is that if you dispute Nobel Laureates, you better have a taste for crow.

[elucidator]

@watchwolf49

…If memory serves me, the temperature there is around 1500ºC to 2000ºC. …

Mine certainly does not, having no trace of that fascinating, ah, “fact”. Perhaps a bit of substantiation, if you are not too busy?

[GIGObuster]

Well, that is a very nice Christmas present. It is rare to see that really so **watchwolf49 ** has to be commended.

And give him a break elucidator, god knows already how many typos and grammar issues I have and he could be referring to the thermosphere.

[elucidator]

A break? A break? Are there no cite prisons, no reference workhouses! What is this, some special holiday to celebrate kindly forbearance and gentle tolerance?

Oh. Right.

[watchwolf49]

@elucidator

Are there no cite prisons, no reference workhouses! What is this, some special holiday to celebrate kindly forbearance and gentle tolerance?

Speaking of citation, you said you have a dis-proof in hand concerning Orbital Forcing. Is there a chance you could share it with us?

[Bricker]

@Gagundathar

It is quite disturbing to see the OP’s assertions narrowed down to a single metric and then when that metric is disputed that the entire thread devolves into an argument about the dispute itself. The actual merits of the OP are being ignored entirely in order for a few people to ‘score points’ on the SMDB.

Then why not dispose of the matter? If the “point” is correct, concede it, and then the issue dies.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

As mentioned, it is an exaggeration and a misleading thing to refer to the 1 billion number as if all of it is used to fight climate change, but to say the opposite is also naive, as pointed before there is plenty of money that was re-porpoised that jumped from helping efforts to deny that tobacco caused cancer to throwing a monkey wrench to the efforts needed to curb CO2 emissions. The excuse from does omit the costs of political and propaganda efforts.

(emphasis added)
Who is saying the opposite?

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

Speaking of citation, you said you have a dis-proof in hand concerning Orbital Forcing. Is there a chance you could share it with us?

Appropriately enough here is Richard Alley explaining to a Republican congress critter that, as mentioned many times before, should have no business being in that position.

(Re)Confirmed: Earth’s Wobble, Plus CO2, Ended Last Ice Age

Video at the bottom, in essence, scientists already know that orbital cycles did affect the climate of the earth, but the cycle many contrarians refer to is not affecting the current warming of today. This is because the cycles last 41,000 years, and the orbital effect is not fast enough to be the cause of the current warming.

And to get into the subject, Republican Dana Rohrabacher is a dishonest twit and it is clear that he is relying on notes from those stink tanks.

[watchwolf49]

You are a stupid motherfucker, I’ve been looking for that link for days to support my hypothesis.

“As the Earth’s orbital and axial characteristics changed over thousands of years, increases in corresponding solar incidence at key northern latitudes gradually brought the planet out of the last ice age. This is the picture that has long been the best fit for the observations, and has now been further confirmed by a team from Oregon State.”

How is my basic assumption being confirmed qualify as dis-proof? Hush now, let elucidator explain.

[elucidator]

Hey! He asked me, OK? I’m the guy gets to shove a cite in his face! All in the generous spirit of giving, of course!

(But, truth be known, I don’t think I actually said any such thing. Of course, my memory isn’t what it used to be. Or maybe it is, and I just don’t remember…)

[GIGObuster]

@watchwolf49

You are a stupid motherfucker, I’ve been looking for that link for days to support my hypothesis.

“As the Earth’s orbital and axial characteristics changed over thousands of years, increases in corresponding solar incidence at key northern latitudes gradually brought the planet out of the last ice age. This is the picture that has long been the best fit for the observations, and has now been further confirmed by a team from Oregon State.”

How is my basic assumption being confirmed qualify as dis-proof?

You are actually claimed that the orbital forcing was affecting the current warming, just admit then that was not important to the **current **warming and therefore a red herring.

You are also being dishonest on what the scientists reported:

The prevailing view over the last decade has been that the change in insolation gradually brought about a rise in greenhouse gases, which took a long time to begin percolating out of ocean and soils, and were a critical component of the forcing that brought the planet into the current interglacial. This lag has often been deviously used by denialists in arguing that greenhouse gases have no effect on global temps. The video above tells that story.

One of the difficulties in telling this story, is that climate scientists have been putting together a puzzle using only one piece – the ice core data from a single location in Antarctica. The “lag” issue emerged as an artifact of the paucity of data.

The new research, drawing on 80 proxy records from diverse locations around the planet to show that “temperature is correlated with and generally lags CO2 during the last (that is, the most recent) deglaciation”.

They found that average temperature around the Earth correlated with – and generally lagged behind – rising levels of CO2.

“Carbon dioxide has been suspected as an important factor in ending the last Ice Age, but its exact role has always been unclear because rising temperatures reflected in Antarctic ice cores came before rising levels of CO2, says Jeremy Shakun, a former doctoral student at OSU and now a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard and Columbia.

“But if you reconstruct temperatures on a global scale – and not just examine Antarctic temperatures – it becomes apparent that the CO2 change slightly preceded much of the global warming, and this means the global greenhouse effect had an important role in driving up global temperatures and bringing the planet out of the last Ice Age.”

The theory is that the Earth’s natural wobble affected the amount of sunlight striking the northern hemisphere, melting ice sheets that covered Canada and Europe. Fresh water flowed into the Atlantic Ocean, where it formed a lid over the sinking end of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation.

This put an end to the movement of warm water up from the tropics which had delivered heat to the northern latitudes.

The discovery has implications, of course, for how human-generated carbon dioxide will affect the planet in future.

“CO2 was a big part of bringing the world out of the last Ice Age, and it took about 10,000 years to do it. Now CO2 levels are rising again, but this time an equivalent increase in CO2 has occurred in only about 200 years, and there are clear signs that the planet is already beginning to respond,” says Shakun.

@watchwolf49

Hush now, let elucidator explain.

Nope, you are then deluded if you expect others to not notice your weasel maneuver here.