Federal Circuit Court rules for the EPA (radical, Canada, money)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Correct, but let the "left" own it. Big deal, so the left wing will be known as the people that supported clean air. This is something new or to be ashamed of?
No ... they'll be known as the group of morons that actually believed C02 was pollution and needed to be reduced .... rather than realizing that it's a vital life giving gas, for which we could use more of... not less
Did I say AGW or CAGW? You do know how to read English, yes?
No need to get angry and snotty. It is a reasonable question as your position is not simply defined by AGW.
Let us be clear here so there is no confusion.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is the definition that man contributes to warming. It does not specify that it is significant. It simply means, man contributes C02 and C02 is a component in warming. Scientists do not dispute this. It is a fact that has been verified and validated.
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is the defintion that man contributes to warming and that warming is significant due to man, that the climate system is pushed passed a tipping point and the result is significant events (Catastrophic) to which the claim is that there is abnormal; sea level rise, melting glaciers, hurricanes, tornadoes, heat waves, droughts, etc... that would not be present if man wasn't contributing to it to reach that "tipping point".
Now that we have a proper definition, we can now discuss what you were asking without confusion.
There is not much research out there that contests with AGW. As I said, very few (if any really) argue this in the field as it has been empirically shown that man does contribute and that C02 is one of the components of warming.
CAGW on the other hand, is highly contested as there has been no research that can confirm a relation between mans contribution that is significant enough to distinguish itself outside of natural variability. The glaciers and polar melting have counter arguments (published peer reviewed literature) as to if it is unprecedented outside of climate cycles or other factors (carbon soot), the same exists for sea level, surface temps, ocean temps, etc... There is a large amount of dispute between the main hypothesis and that of the supporting factors that are used to claim it.
So, maybe you thought we were objecting to AGW, but I think the use of it is often simply the misunderstanding of context to which people use it. Politically the term means something different than that of the term scientifically, the same was the problem "Global Warming" when that was its initial term politically.
That brings us to the main question. Are you making the argument of CAGW or AGW? As I said, if it is AGW, I have no argument, but then... from your comments, you seemed to imply that result of AGW is significant and that signal is identified and causing major disruptions in our system. That would be a CAGW argument, not an AGW argument and that is what many of us here (as well as many in the scientific community) are objecting to.
If what we exhale is harmless you should test your theory. Place a plastic bag over your head tighten it around your neck and breath deeply for about ten minutes.... Let us know how that works put for you.
Why don't you stick your head in a bucket of water and hold it there for 5 minutes, and then we can say water is a deadly substance that needs to be eliminated?
How many of y'all who think the EPA is the devil incarnate are old enough to remember the days before there was an EPA or environmental regulations?
I remember it well and can tell you that you would NOT want to go back to those days. Well...not unless you just WANT your kids and grandkids swimming in polluted waters, drinking heavy metals from the industrial complex down the street or breathing air which was literally brown and smelled like rotten fruit.
What are you talking about? Why can't you all bother to educate yourself?
The EPA just recently raised the safe limits of radiation exposure, in some cases, 1000 times higher than previously set safe limits. Do you think that there was some scientific breakthrough discovery that radiation is not as bad for you as once thought? No ... it was in response to being bombarded with increasing radiation levels from Fukushima .... OK? That's the EPA response .... "don't worry, be happy ... radiation is nothing to be concerned about".
So NOW radiation is now good for you ... and CO2 is destroying the planet, and the drooling masses cheer!
In some instances, prices will rise. In others, it will not. My electric company is replacing a 60 year old coal-fired plant with a natural gas. When you calculate costs, you also have to calculate the damage to the environment of the current regime. Not just in terms of greenhouse gases, but it terms of impacts to soil, surface and groundwater, and human health. Is this really the legacy we want to leave for our grandchildren?
My opinion is that the cost increase, if any, will be marginal, and well worth the benefits of switching to cleaner energy sources. I don't see the cost being much more than when the current plants were built in the first place.
Jimmy Carter moved the nation from natural gas to coal because "NG/OIL has peaked and we have unlimited coal resources." So he crushed the drilling of wells and pushed the mining of coal. That was 30 years ago, and now we are awash in NG and oil and coal.
Now we have Obama wanting to crush everything, and a glut of NG and oil in spite of his regulating and 25% drop in permitting. What will we be saying about this in 30 years?
What is it going to take to get these idiots to stop favoring one thing over another. Technologies always strip away the problems of the past. We have clean coal burning technologies, and in a decade they'll be even greener. On the other hand, China is building 3 dirty coal plants a month. While the west is getting cleaner (to the point of bankrupting us), China is pumping enough dirt into the atmosphere to negate our efforts. Now, Japan is dumping nuclear and will move to??? Wanna bet it'll be coal?
I'm all for clean water and air. I'm also for balancing rational power creation with an ecological conscience. The EPA and this administration seem intent on bankrupting private industry, by way of energy costs, in their quest for a socialist state. Waters let it slip "I will take over the oil industry and socialize it!"
"Absolute power corrupts absolutely": The EPA has become a corrupt entity pushed forward by ideology rather than fairness.
There was no "claim", it is fact. Note your below previous response:
The entire above argument was after I asked you how the ice core data compared with plant stomata and GEOCARB.
You were political entirely and never once dealt with the question I posed.
You seem to believe that it is appropriate and productive for the world's scientists to waste their time and efforts answering every crackpot web site. It is not. There are appropriate scientific venues and innappropriate ones. The fact is that Wattsupwiththat IS a rightwing political blog with the agenda of spreading disinformation on anthropogenic global warming. And while some scientists do fall into the trap of giving Anthony Watt the time of day, I'll not be a part of it. And for the record, I didn't bring him up, you did. So it is obvious who is the one being political here. I would give you the exact same answer had we been discussing geology and you posted a response using the web site of the Flat Earth Society.
Now, having done an admitted cursory search of the internet on the issue of "ice core data compared with plant stomata and GEOCARB", one finds that the exact same article posted on Wattsupwiththat is posted on nearly every climate science denier and rightwing political web site that popped up in the search. Hell I even found the exact same article on a Jehovah's Witness web site.
Now, the article on Watt's site was obvious done for political reasons, otherwise it would not have been repeated on nearly every rightwing political blog out there. What is most telling is that you don't see it being published or discussed on any of the peer reviewed scientific publication web site. Again, if the propaganda posted on Anthony Watt's web site had any merit, they would publish it in an appropriate scientific venue. Furthermore, the issue to which you refer was (likely originally) addressed in one appropriate scientific venue - the IPCC, which is probably why Watt, et al, those to attack it.
Now, if you want to have a scientific debate about the merits of climate change science, I'm all for that. If you're intent is to have a political debate using pseudo-science promoted by political hacks, please take it elsewhere as I am not interested.
Quote:
AGW is accepted, that was never the issue. The issue is CAGW. We already discussed that man contributes C02 and that C02 has a small contribution to warming. Most scientists agree with this, but this is not support for Catastrophic AGW which is to say that mans contribution is significant and that C02 is the primary driver of warming as well as the direct cause of major climate events. That is a hypothesis and has never been validated. You argue from either a position of ignorance (not knowing what scientists agree and disagree on) or deviousness (knowing the issue,but confusing the argument to promote your bias).
No sir, you are wrong. Separating terms is the latest right wing political ploy to try to, (well, not refute AGW because they cannot do that and they know it) spread disinformation about what climate change science says and does not say, and to make it appear that one is acceptable while the other is not. There is no difference in terms, because there is no doubt within the scientific community at large that global warming is having a devastating effect on global ecosystems and human populations, and will continue to have these effects, likely on an even larger scale in the future as the planet continues to warm until we mitigate our behavior - that is, stop pumping billions of tons of GHGs every year into the atmosphere.
It amuses me the way you simply glossed over my arguments and simply pretended that it is settled that CO2 has a "small contribution to warming". Compared to other gases in the atmosphere, it is true that CO2 concentrations are relatively small (in the hundreds of parts per million). But it's contribution to the greenhouse effect is ANYTHING but small, and anything but short-lived. This is not in debate. It is well established, and so it would be a waste of time for me to elaborate on it further.
Quote:
In science, it is the responsibility of a given position to verify, validate, and replicate. What you suggest is contrary to science and contrary to basic aspects of logical argument. You can not simply state a hypothesis as fact and then proclaim it valid until someone invalidates such, that is backwards in thought and function.
Obviously, you have never conducted any scientific research. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Climate scientists had the burden of proof for the last 35 years until today it is accepted science by the vast majority of the world's scientists. Now the burden of proof is on the critics. It is up to critics to show why AGW is wrong (in the appropriate scientific venues, not on fringe political blogs) and provide a robust and verifiable alternative to what is causing the rather obviously abnormal rise in global temperatures of the last 100 years.
The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence demonstrate that both AGW and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince other scientists of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider (and make no mistake, climage change critics are on the fringe) this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. The fact that an uninformed public has largely not been convinced of the reality of AGW is admittedly due to the fact that critics have done a much better job at spreading disinformation than the scientists have done at disiminating valid information, and the fact that climate science is difficult for an uninformed public to understand.
Quote:
Peer review is not a means of validation, as we have seen from numerous retracted research concerning this issue. If peer review were the validation to the hypothesis, then we have a problem, because there is peer reviewed research that conflicts with the CAGW hypothesis. Science is a process of discovery. Errors and furthering understanding is its goal and this can not be achieved by taking the stance you take.Your stance is one of appealing to self appointed authority and dogma.
Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic publication's suitability for publication. Peer review has been the standard for evaluating professional papers for at least the last 150 years.
Quote:
Watts up with that is simply a blog to which is a means for many researchers in the field to bring their ideas and research to the public.
Blog - exactly.
Researchers? Watt is not a scientist, only has a B.S. in broadcast meteorology (and I'm not too sure that had he remained a broadcast meteorologist that I would be confident in his weather predictions - after all, he worked in a region where the most drastic weather one can find usually is the fog that comes off the Pacific Ocean every morning), and only has one refereed publication under his belt, one that was rather quickly refuted. McIntyre is not a scientist, either. He is a statistician with a B.S. in mathematics. He too has, at best, one publication under his belt. It claimed to have found a problem with the "hockey stick", a problem that allegedly showed that it is not valid. The problem is not that he did found a problem, He did. The problem is that it was so small (a fraction of an order of magnitude) that it had virtually no impact on the conclusions the hockey stick makes. So I salute him for him improving the precision of that particular graph, but not for the heinous politically biased disinformation campaign he and Watt promoted afterwards, one that continues to this day despite the fact that the hockey stick has since been validated by others using different proxies.
Quote:
The wonderful thing about public peer review is that it is brutal and no punches are held as they can often be with peer review which has been poorly established with politically driven journals and selectively established review processes. What you fail to accept is that on his site, not only do skeptics make their arguments in guest posts, but warmers as well.
The problem with public peer review is that unqualified critics can influence scientific debate and public perceptions with disinformation which an uninformed public takes to be fact when it has not been shown within the scientific community itself to be true. This does not advance scientific thinking. In fact, it impedes scientific progress, which, by the way, is their true intent with Wattsupwiththat and other pundant web sites. Science is not a democracy. The majority doesn't get to decide whether or not the Earth is flat. The facts do.
By the way, there are no authorities in science, only experts. And experts can be shown to be right or wrong, which is one of the reasons why peer review and replication is so important.
Quote:
Not only that, but what you again failed to accept was that each of those articles are sourced with citations to peer reviewed research to which is easily linked to the originating sources.
Great. Then you won't mind if I wait for them to publish their findings in appropriate refereed journals before I address them. After all, scientists are their own worst critics, and they hate to be wrong. You didn't know this? Huh.
Quote:
You dismiss, as we already showed above because you are a political pundit, pushing a particular bias of your choosing. Denying such in the face of your own words makes you look foolish.
What is foolish is to expect scientists to address ad hoc pseudo-science as if it somehow has scientific merit.
Quote:
My suggestion is that if you wish to be taken seriously, then discuss the questions brought up.
My suggestion to you is that if you want to be taken seriously, stop wasting everyone's time by posting links to political hack web sites.
Last edited by orogenicman; 06-29-2012 at 10:51 AM..
You seem to believe that it is appropriate and productive for the world's scientists to waste their time and efforts answering every crackpot web site. It is not. There are appropriate scientific venues and innappropriate ones. The fact is that Wattsupwiththat IS a rightwing political blog with the agenda of spreading disinformation on anthropogenic global warming. And while some scientists do fall into the trap of giving Anthony Watt the time of day, I'll not be a part of it. And for the record, I didn't bring him up, you did. So it is obvious who is the one being political here. I would give you the exact same answer had we been discussing geology and you posted a response using the web site of the Flat Earth Society.
Now, having done an admitted cursory search of the internet on the issue of "ice core data compared with plant stomata and GEOCARB", one finds that the exact same article posted on Wattsupwiththat is posted on nearly every climate science denier and rightwing political web site that popped up in the search. Hell I even found the exact same article on a Jehovah's Witness web site.
Now, the article on Watt's site was obvious done for political reasons, otherwise it would not have been repeated on nearly every rightwing political blog out there. What is most telling is that you don't see it being published or discussed on any of the peer reviewed scientific publication web site. Again, if the propaganda posted on Anthony Watt's web site had any merit, they would publish it in an appropriate scientific venue. Furthermore, the issue to which you refer was (likely originally) addressed in one appropriate scientific venue - the IPCC, which is probably why Watt, et al, those to attack it.
Now, if you want to have a scientific debate about the merits of climate change science, I'm all for that. If you're intent is to have a political debate using pseudo-science promoted by political hacks, please take it elsewhere as I am not interested.
No sir, you are wrong. Separating terms is the latest right wing political ploy to try to, (well, not refute AGW because they cannot do that and they know it) spread disinformation about what climate change science says and does not say, and to make it appear that one is acceptable while the other is not. There is no difference in terms, because there is no doubt within the scientific community at large that global warming is having a devastating effect on global ecosystems and human populations, and will continue to have these effects, likely on an even larger scale in the future as the planet continues to warm until we mitigate our behavior - that is, stop pumping billions of tons of GHGs every year into the atmosphere.
It amuses me the way you simply glossed over my arguments and simply pretended that it is settled that CO2 has a "small contribution to warming". Compared to other gases in the atmosphere, it is true that CO2 concentrations are relatively small (in the hundreds of parts per million). But it's contribution to the greenhouse effect is ANYTHING but small, and anything but short-lived. This is not in debate. It is well established, and so it would be a waste of time for me to elaborate on it further.
Obviously, you have never conducted any scientific research. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Climate scientists had the burden of proof for the last 35 years until today it is accepted science by the vast majority of the world's scientists. Now the burden of proof is on the critics. It is up to critics to show why AGW is wrong (in the appropriate scientific venues, not on fringe political blogs) and provide a robust and verifiable alternative to what is causing the rather obviously abnormal rise in global temperatures of the last 100 years.
The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence demonstrate that both AGW and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince other scientists of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider (and make no mistake, climage change critics are on the fringe) this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong. The fact that an uninformed public has largely not been convinced of the reality of AGW is admittedly due to the fact that critics have done a much better job at spreading disinformation than the scientists have done at disiminating valid information, and the fact that climate science is difficult for an uninformed public to understand.
Peer review is a process of self-regulation by a profession or a process of evaluation involving qualified individuals within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards, improve performance and provide credibility. In academia peer review is often used to determine an academic publication's suitability for publication. Peer review has been the standard for evaluating professional papers for at least the last 150 years.
Blog - exactly.
Researchers? Watt is not a scientist, only has a B.S. in broadcast meteorology (and I'm not too sure that had he remained a broadcast meteorologist that I would be confident in his weather predictions - after all, he worked in a region where the most drastic weather one can find usually is the fog that comes off the Pacific Ocean every morning), and only has one refereed publication under his belt, one that was rather quickly refuted. McIntyre is not a scientist, either. He is a statistician with a B.S. in mathematics. He too has, at best, one publication under his belt. It claimed to have found a problem with the "hockey stick", a problem that allegedly showed that it is not valid. The problem is not that he did found a problem, He did. The problem is that it was so small (a fraction of an order of magnitude) that it had virtually no impact on the conclusions the hockey stick makes. So I salute him for him improving the precision of that particular graph, but not for the heinous politically biased disinformation campaign he and Watt promoted afterwards, one that continues to this day despite the fact that the hockey stick has since been validated by others using different proxies.
The problem with public peer review is that unqualified critics can influence scientific debate and public perceptions with disinformation which an uninformed public takes to be fact when it has not been shown within the scientific community itself to be true. This does not advance scientific thinking. In fact, it impedes scientific progress, which, by the way, is their true intent with Wattsupwiththat and other pundant web sites. Science is not a democracy. The majority doesn't get to decide whether or not the Earth is flat. The facts do.
By the way, there are no authorities in science, only experts. And experts can be shown to be right or wrong, which is one of the reasons why peer review and replication is so important.
Great. Then you won't mind if I wait for them to publish their findings in appropriate refereed journals before I address them. After all, scientists are their own worst critics, and they hate to be wrong. You didn't know this? Huh.
What is foolish is to expect scientists to address ad hoc pseudo-science as if it somehow has scientific merit.
My suggestion to you is that if you want to be taken seriously, stop wasting everyone's time by posting links to political hack web sites.
Sorry, I have no desire to argue science with one who promotes dogma and appeals to authority. Good luck with that. /boggle
Bad news for Texas. Smoke from the fires in Mexico each year drift over us and the EPA counts it as ours [/quot
Yep, the EPA is a political organization used to serve political purpose. The environmental wackos and communists will surely rejoice, but... in the end the result is... we are their slaves... Or we fight and eliminate them. Knowing how people are these days, I vote slaves. People get what they deserve.
The EPA is an arm (read: tool) of the government and is already playing a huge part in implementation of Agenda 21 which will impact the entire country far more than anyone who doesn't know about it can imagine.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
[/quot
