Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 02/21/2011

Are we almost there?

By Tom Toles

c_02212011.gif

***

Watson come here -- I want to see you

Well, Watson is here, and what did we see, other than him beating us in Jeopardy? I put that in the form of a question. It was something of a letdown for us, but more so for Watson.

We have come to expect to be bettered by machine intelligence, though we haven't seen anything yet. We are going to be absolutely DOMINATED, CRUSHED, ANNIHILATED by machine intelligence, I hope only metaphorically. This is clearly inevitable now, and it will be more profound than science fiction has prepared us for. We are busy changing our education system to produce people who can build these things, but how much longer will we need people to figure this stuff out, when the computers do THAT better than we do, too? Robotics is not so far behind. This is a change in kind, but it may not be so very kind.

Anyway, can we at least dispense with the confusion about when these things become "alive?" Intelligence is not what life is about. Watson won, but he felt nothing for his victory, because he had no feelings. Feeling is the defining characteristic of animal life, not smarts, although certain people exhibit neither. We will no doubt program in a cunning array of machine behaviors that MIMIC feeling, until it will be just about impossible to tell if they are starting to be the real thing. We will be left wondering. Machines will get smarter, and we will only grow more confused. --Tom Toles

***

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_02212011.gif

By Tom Toles  | February 21, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Economy and jobs  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Difficult delivery
Next: Shape of things to come

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

daly--to add to ptg's comments:

The Beck paper is hilarious! Why do you suppose Keeling put his station on the top of a mountain in the middle of the Pacific Ocean--because he liked the view???

RealClimate does a nice demolition of the "paper". In his rebuttal, George Hoffmann's first point is that the carbon fluxes necessary for such wild swings of CO2 would be "just unbelievably huge." In closing, Hoffmann notes that the paper was "warmly received" by Lyndon LaRouche, but "we will try to refrain from drawing any conclusions from this..."

Beck's paper is textbook GIGO. It reminds me of when Calvin (of C and Hobbes) wrote a science report on the Jurassic. He took some snapshots of toy dinosaurs in his back yard and put the photos into a nice shiny plastic binder, confident of getting an "A". His teacher explained the much deserved "F" with words to the effect: "it contains only two facts, both of which you made up."

Posted by: e30m42 | February 23, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

~~~ In my tiny area of the world, ethanol corn has been grown near my house, but only previously unused fields are used. That doesn't tell us much though.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 22, 2011 3:32 PM~~~

lol...then what is your point!

by the way soybean is used a lot for different products....I for one drink soymilk instead of cow's milk. Also endamame beans are very healthy as well as tasty if prepared right. Not to mention Tofu.. I am sure there are certain countries which use the aforementioned products more than others.

and I am sure you very well know that crops must be rotated to protect the soil.

Posted by: bertzel | February 22, 2011 3:47 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 11:53 PM

I think you should entirely dismiss the Beck data. In any urban area, CO2 emissions sources come and go. Perhaps the most absurd thing about the Beck data was that he attempted to curve to the data--that curve is the biggest single indicator that something is very wrong with Beck's analysis. The question is not why the IPCC do not mention it in their reports, but rather, why would they mention the Beck data. it's not good data for use in historical atmospheric CO2 concentration analysis. And I see no way to correct it.

Depression of corn wheat and soybean production by even a couple of % can affect food prices. Also, what about other food prices. You might also look at crop numbers worldwide. We sell agriculture products around the world, probably to the highest bidder. But at any rate, corn wheat and soybean production drops in other parts of the world can affect prices here. In my tiny area of the world, ethanol corn has been grown near my house, but only previously unused fields are used. That doesn't tell us much though.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 22, 2011 3:32 PM | Report abuse

To Tom Toles...
On the subject of food prices; the logical
agenda for producers and suppliers will be to raise prices as high as is possible until only the wealthy few will be able to buy their products and services. As long as there are people who will pay the price, they can maintain a monopoly and there are no regulations; the sky is the limit. This situation will exist until the supply side of economics sucks all of the money out of the economy and the demand side of the economy collapses.
Everyone that has money is on the demand side of economics and everyone that works is part of the supply side of economics.
Most people do both the demand and the supply side of economics which means they need to have a source of money to survive in their society. People's income must be either equal to or greater than the cost of living to support their lifestyle.
As a nation's population grows and more products are available; it is necessary that there is more money to expand the economy to meet the needs of the nations demand and supply.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 22, 2011 1:52 AM | Report abuse

so dave...tell us what you really think.
What is your take on "artificial intelligence", which scientists are currently trying to perfect? Do you know that some even believe they will actually have a soul? Some type of religion I guess, that believes even a slab of wood contains a soul....
Posted by: bertzel

So what do I think?
Personally, I think that intelligence is an integral part of reality. It is the ability to sort data and respond to situations appropriately.
There is intelligence and there is lack of intelligence and there is a continuum of intelligence from none to unlimited.
There is intelligence from living entities and there is intelligence as part of physical function.
Living intelligence is self-motivated and mechanical intelligence is programmed.
There is also non-physical universal intelligence and there is individual spiritual non-physical intelligence. Intelligence is both a product of nature (what we experience) and nurture (what we are taught.
People have both cognitive intelligence and spiritual intelligence.
People are both physically and spiritually aware.
It is necessary to keep both body and soul together to maintain a complete person.
We are both the sum of our parts and the sum of our intelligence.
Physical reality is the natural subject matter of science.
Spiritual reality is the natural subject of religion.
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 22, 2011 1:05 AM | Report abuse

PTG

US crop production numbers for corn wheat and soybeans are all in the top 5% for the last 3 years if not the top production number according to USDA. Corn consumption for ethanol has gone from less than 5%in 2001 less than 10% in 2004 to 26% in 2009 the last year this stat is available.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/datablog/2010/jan/22/us-corn-production-biofuel-ethanol#data

I share your concerns regarding the Beck report but cannot dismiss entirely the actual published data sets. I think it is interesting - telling that these data sets were not addressed at all in the IPCC report.

What pollutant were you monitoring in the US and Saudi Arabia?

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Jon

I too worry about the carry capacity of humans on the earth but I am optimistic that technology will continue to improve the standard of living for the teeming masses. We have just begun to master electric manipulation.

The US has spent 39 billion on studies of CO2 so there is a thriving industry that has had some benefit.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Daly, I said "peak of human civilization," because I'm pretty convinced that's where we are. Think about it: Unchecked population growth, depletion of resources, no magic bullets... not to be dramatic, just that the human race seems pretty much to have run its course. We've done pretty well for ourselves, but have overshot sustainability. It isn't the end of history, only that we've peaked.

Bertzel, I thought that I had responded about the beginning... with, "I don't know." You have a good memory for threads. Another one of those disillusionment things for me; painful at first, but impossible to ignore once rationalized thoroughly... I don't know how it all started, but I know several ways it certainly did not start.

As far as "claiming that there are no organizations or scientists working for organizations or industries that would benefit from agw global warming?? I mean climate change..."
"Benefit" from AGW/climate change? In the grand scheme of things, excepting insurance companies and bookies, I would claim that there are essentially none.

Educate me. Please!

Posted by: jonroesler | February 21, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 9:39 PM

It would indeed be boring w/o you.

Regarding the paper, and the data it describes, it did not raise any doubt with me. Rather, it tends confirm what I already believe. If that's the best AGW-skeptic data you have...well, then AGW is a on slid ground. My original concerns were the same concerns that many others have. The variability in the data is due to regional and local CO2 emissions sources near the CO2 measurement sites. I'll add that most of the comments I read described few, if any problems with the actual measurement procedures (this is out of my area of expertise). The objection(s) was to the location of the measurement sites, and location probably accounts for almost all of the CO2 concentration variability that you see in the data. There seems to be no way to correct (I know of no way to correct...) the data for local and regional sources of CO2, so the data was rejected. We do not have this problem with the MLO site since it is located well away from CO2 emission sources...CO2 is well mixed into the atmosphere. when it reaches the MLO. Early in my career, I worked in Air Quality Modeling (local sources in the U.S.) and Air Quality And Meteorological Monitoring (regional in Saudi Arabia), so I have some idea of the pitfalls in both modeling and monitoring. The models I worked with were short-term air quality models for local sources with an ambient background concentration of the pollutant being modeled.

Regarding the rise in food prices, the recent rise is likely due to the severe weather we've had in the U.S. This too, is something you can actually research on your own.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 10:06 PM | Report abuse

PTG

Another educational link

http://www.lanl.gov/source/orgs/ees/ees14/pdfs/09Chlylek.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 9:48 PM | Report abuse

BTW, why didn't YOU dig around to find out what other scientists had to say about "180 Years accurate CO2 - Gasanalysis of Air
by Chemical Methods (Short version)?" Why accept it w/o any critical review? I don't get it! Research means looking at all sides of the issue.

What makes you think I have not researched this paper.

I have had this paper for a year or more so I have not accepted it without review. I am not trying to change your mind regarding AGW but only raise some doubt. I have read every page of the skeptical science site and all four IPCC reports and EPA NOAA NASA etc. So I do look at both sides.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Just think how boring it would be without us

here is the link to the paper requested

http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 9:04 PM | Report abuse

rowens1 | February 21, 2011 8:26 PM

Your welcome. Pararanger and dalyplanet are the blog's most enthusiastic contrarians. Black is white, white is black, black is white is black is white...ad infinitum. The obsessive tail-chasing never ends.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 8:56 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner- thanks for your post.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 8:26 PM | Report abuse

@pararanger | February 20, 2011 7:46 PM and other lunacies

I read your *many* posts and you simply cannot stay on-argument. Public unions don't count...to you, right after you argue that private unions have destroyed the U.S. auto industry. Unions are unions. But German unions and government control workers far more than as done in the U.S. yet they are as productive as American workers. "Our auto companies are constantly under the gun because" all auto companies are under the gun to innovate, improve quality of product and productivity. We've been poor at doing those things. German and Japanese plants in the U.S. do well here--sure, but they treat employees well because they are under the threat of unionization. One of our worst faults is blaming others such as China, seeing them as the enemy. Sell them our products. The Germans are successful in China and other countries. Again, we point the finger at others rather than sucking it up and getting moving.

But once again, I ask why do you want to tear down hard-working people so that they make less money and have fewer benefits than you. Why shouldn't you do the hard work, education and career change, to pull yourself up? Isn't that the mythical American way? Is this your version of class warfare? Tear other people down.

All you have to say is that "the Taliban did not attack us. The Taliban knew nothing of the 9/11 attack." That's our debate. All else is blah, blah, blah. If you can't defend our attack on Afghanistan, admit it. "The Afghans and Iraqis have been playing inside baseball with the American military since 2001"--doesn't matter. Either the Taliban attacked us or they did not. I have no doubts that the U.S. has been trying to overthrow governments in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. for some time. Why didn't we overthrow the brutal dictators in Egypt, Saudi Arabia--you you, our allies?

I won't even address your Reagan comment. He left CA in shambles and he left the U.S. economy in shambles.

You either believe in majority rule or you don't. If you think the colonists were right to fight the RW, in spite of the fact that fewer than 1/3 supported the war, just say: "I believe that the minority should rule the majority."

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 8:06 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet

Did you not look at the paper you pointed me to. At the bottom of each page, it clearly states "This is an unofficial extract of E-G Beck's comprehensive draft paper and is for discussion not citing." I think you are wasting my time again. But I will read it and look at the comments of others wrt Beck's paper. Beck is deceased. so he can't discuss his paper.

BTW, why didn't YOU dig around to find out what other scientists had to say about "180 Years accurate CO2 - Gasanalysis of Air
by Chemical Methods (Short version)?" Why accept it w/o any critical review? I don't get it! Research means looking at all sides of the issue.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 7:15 PM | Report abuse

~~~I suppose what I'm saying here is that, I'm willing to take the word of such a huge majority of scientists on a subject over which the only objection comes either from non-scientist bloggers with an axe to grind and scientists in the employ of an industry that stands to benefit by denial.
jonroesler~~

Gee...are you also claiming that there are no organizations or scientists working for organizations or industries that would benefit from agw global warmning?? I mean climate change.
It works both ways...

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 7:13 PM | Report abuse

~~Deep down, Liberals don't want to say 'we need oil.' Kind of sad - all that denial...
Posted by: pararanger~~~

Ranger...that is not true.
Of course we need oil.
We need to 'wean' ourselves off of it as much as possible tho. Would you not agree?

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 7:01 PM | Report abuse

~~Science leads to disillusionment, and disillusionment leads much too often to denial. Science looks for causality, and sometimes (often!) finds that there really is none... that some things (many!) really are the result of almost pure coincidence.
Posted by: jonroesler | February 21, 2011 6:03 PM

Disillusionment leads to denial?
In reference to what? Would it not lead to a more 'true' sense of perception? Then again there does indeed seem to be a lot of illusionment floating around on this blog...to the point where some even give the cold shoulder !! LOL. But I digress...

I don't believe in pure coincidence. So what do you suppose that makes me 'guilty' of?
By the way...you never did (to my knowledge or sight) respond to that 'in the beginning comment'. Or should I say before the in the beginning comment...
Care to now??

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Deep down, Liberals don't want to say 'we need oil.' Kind of sad - all that denial...

Posted by: pararanger

You have it in a nutshell there ranger - all that denial

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 6:54 PM | Report abuse

PTG

This data does make you think eh?

One of the scientists invented the method used today, another wrote the textbook on respiration that is still in use today.

Why is there NO mention of these 90,000 measurements in IPCC even to state why they were not used.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 6:48 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 3:26 PM

I'd need to know more about the CO2 data that was collected. Under what conditions was it collected. What method was used? I have doubts about the ability to directly and accurately measure CO2 ppmv that far back--is the proxy data better? You have apparently accepted data that you nothing about as accurate or reliable data. Not good. We know the MLO data is good; we know most everything about how and where it was collected. But I don't (yet) know anything about the data you are pointing me to. I won't accept it until I have a good reason to believe that it is good data.
The question is not why the data you are pointing me too was ignored. The question is why would would accept data--any data. Just saying that this data was "published, peer reviewed, cited, data on past CO2 levels" does not make it so.

My first reaction is that the 180 years of data measurements are taken all over Europe (and as far afield as India), that measurements are taken in cites and out of cities (local sources influence local outcomes, but have little impact on global CO2) and various methods were utilized. These are some of the potential concerns that I mentioned before I looked at the paper presenting that data. Oh, my. What kind of a graph is depicted Figure 3? All this doesn't mean the data should be tossed! I'll dig further. You should do the same.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

I feel quite privileged to be witnessing what is likely the peak of human civilization.

Why do you say this Jon

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 6:31 PM | Report abuse

fbrewer

I will recap my anti CAGW points for clarity.

There is no way to get an accurate global average temperature using the methods currently employed. Related, the methods employed will show an upward bias due to reduction in data points and the urban heat effects on many that remain. Satellite data was included then removed as it did not agree with the models.

Historical temperature data has changed from the first report to the last to hide prior temperature fluctuation.

The models used to predict future warming are flawed and there is no independent confirmation of these models prediction.

The chemistry physics approach predict modest temperature increase using formula and derivation.

Prior measured and proxy CO2 levels do not agree with the IPCC statements.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 6:26 PM | Report abuse

No, 'we' don't know where that pernicious road (science) leads.
Why don't' you explain?
Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011

--

Science leads to disillusionment, and disillusionment leads much too often to denial. Science looks for causality, and sometimes (often!) finds that there really is none... that some things (many!) really are the result of almost pure coincidence.

Other times, when we find causality, we aren't happy with what we find.

My use of the word "pernicious" was an attempt at sarcasm.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 21, 2011 6:03 PM | Report abuse

Fbrewer

I have consistently stated a number of energy options presently available and requested discussion and have been generally ignored. So I began inquiring and later stating that two of these options seem poor to me. Using food for fuel seems shortsighted especially if AGW famine flood predictions are true. This raises doubt as to the veracity of the whole AGW argument as storing food instead of burning it seems wise in the face of imminent food shortage due to climate change.

The other option of CCS also seems poor from a conservation of resource standpoint. If one takes all the energy savings from peak load management, wind, solar, geothermal, and conservation, then doubles that number it will still be less than the extra energy requirement needed for CCS. This also seems unwise.

I have immersed myself in the study of world carbon consumption and determined that the end of oil and coal will occur when there is none left. This leads to inquiry at to when this point may be and concern that attempts to reduce CO2 may in fact hasten that day especially concerning natural gas.

Looking for energy management solutions in the IPCC leads to looking at the complete report. Looking leads to seeing inconsistencies. This leads to deeper looking and more inconsistencies. One can accept the findings by degrees as it is a broad subject. I do not accept the need for foolish hasty energy solutions based on the report and cries of the affluent masses.

Some solutions to discuss
Nuclear
Serious reduction in energy consumption
Fusion
Personal power generation
Various Cap and Trade models
Altered transportation models
New Baseload Generation in developing countries

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

daly, all I can say is that you should present your data to the IPCC or other climate scientists and let them answer you. As to why data was thrown out that would have been gathered before we humans started using electricity, I can only guess. Whether the data points were various and worldwide vs. merely local to cities, again, I can only guess.

I suppose what I'm saying here is that, I'm willing to take the word of such a huge majority of scientists on a subject over which the only objection comes either from non-scientist bloggers with an axe to grind and scientists in the employ of an industry that stands to benefit by denial. If that seems unreasonable, so be it.

In an attempt at consistency, I take the word of science over other issues as well, notwithstanding the political advantage of disagreeing with science.

As I said earlier, my opinion is that scientists, along with other realists out there, would be tickled pink if it turned out that everything is fine and we have nothing to worry about. We are obviously tied to oil for the foreseeable future, but the oil and even coal will be gone at some point. Nuclear not being popular, the choice will soon be made FOR us in any case by the disappearance of resources.

Not in my lifetime, fortunately. Meanwhile, I feel quite privileged to be witnessing what is likely the peak of human civilization... for whatever that's worth.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 21, 2011 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Ptgrunner,
Confidence I’ve got. Fantasies? Not hardly. Certainly none that have anything to do with you!

Sorry if you can’t keep more than 1.5 things in your mind at once, but Hawaii belonged to the US in WWII so you’ve lost the debate (and of course that is why Hawaii entered the debate). Again – my regrets for your loss. In fact, there were skirmishes in Alaska (another US territory) with the Japanese too. Wow – your argument keeps getting weaker and weaker (it was always stupid).

The Taliban gave OBL safe harbor for him to hatch his evil plot to attack the US. So the Taliban were complicit in 911 which was an attack on the US, in the US. I never stated that Iraq, Panama, or Vietnam attacked the US so that’s another red herring/false argument on your part. What else is new?

Ptgrunner wrote: “And then there is the issue of collective bargaining rights for state workers in WI. It is not necessary to deprive them of collective bargaining rights in order to balance the state budget. Do you feel that you are doing so badly in life that state workers must be dragged down to your level? Why not aspire and work towards their level? Isn't that the American way? Sounds more like "crabs in a bucket to me." State workers are middle class folks, probably not as much better off than you as you would think. But it is your intent to punish them.”

You might have a point if you were talking about private unions. But you’re not – yet you apply the same standards to public workers. Public workers – government work – is not the place to aspire toward the golden ring. Government work is service to and for the public. If you want to make the big coin, take the riskier trail of the private sector.

Dragged to my level? Sure – ‘my level’. I make more than the Governor of WI so I don’t see your point. Of course, maybe the WI public union collective bargaining team feels aggrieved and wants to make more than the governor - I stand corrected!

I get it you don’t think we should have fought the RW but I don’t understand why.

What bad thing, exactly, did fighting the RW engender?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 5:25 PM | Report abuse

rowens1,

I don't seek superiority - just a chance to sharpen my ever-dull wits. You made a point or two today but proving me wrong isn't in the cards. Try not to take it too hard!

On energy policy, however, there aren't any Liberals willing to engage in a debate about it. Who cares if you are qualified or not - since when was that a prerequisite to blog (see any number of genius remarks from ptgrunner to see my point)? Anyway, I don't have any expectations about any Liberals taking any positions on energy any time soon.

Deep down, Liberals don't want to say 'we need oil.' Kind of sad - all that denial...

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 4:31 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet - You have looked at some of the first tentative attempts to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, and decided they were counter-productive. Actually, I agree with that assessment.

But you then proceeded from that reasonable position to an all-encompassing denial of the entire body of research that generated those attempts. Understandable, but wrong-headed and unproductive.

To support that denial, you then immersed yourself in the anti-climate change fantasy world that has been distorting and lying about every conceivable aspect of the enormous body of data and research that calls for sensible changes in how we generate and use energy. Your reliance on, and unattributed quotes from, the incredibly duplicitous Anthony Watts are sufficient in themselves to remove any credibility from your incessant and repetitious iterations of the same misinformation.

You truly are simply a contrarian. As rapidly as one of your points is dismissed, you shift to another, without even attempting to defend the first. It's called a "yabut". That derives from the verbal, "Yeah....but..." You seem to have a repertoire that includes six or eight of these, and you just rotate through them until it's time to start the cycle all over again.

That's not debate. It's not even discussion. It's just you being contrary. Your mother didn't let you get away with that when you were nine. Is that why you so relish it now?

Posted by: fbrewer1 | February 21, 2011 4:20 PM | Report abuse

~~~And then there is the issue of collective bargaining rights for state workers in WI. It is not necessary to deprive them of collective bargaining rights in order to balance the state budget. Do you feel that you are doing so badly in life that state workers must be dragged down to your level? Why not aspire and work towards their level? Isn't that the American way? Sounds more like "crabs in a bucket to me." State workers are middle class folks, probably not as much better off than you as you would think. But it is your intent to punish them. ptgrunner~~~

Hey runner...you are talking a mouthful of crap, not crabs, there buddy. Just sayin'

Do you think state workers deserve better benefits than the rest of the people in Wisconsin?
Those that put their lives on the line...yes. Teachers hardly put there lives on the line. Firemen and Police...different story.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 4:19 PM | Report abuse

Sorry to disappoint you too, dalyplanet.

The only reason I can see for refusing to acknowledge the end to carbon extraction needs to be dealt with is in the politics of the oil industry.

Blame it on consumers for bad choices if you must, but the poor saps can't pick which pipeline the product comes from, or which Mid-East dictator allowed it to be extracted.

Face it man, Big Oil has set policy, foreign and domestic, fiscal and monetary, for a long time in America. They have bankrupted us with their need for the U.S. Military and all its State Department efforts and the scale of their pricing, their control of emissions laws, extraction and royalty laws. They drill in our parks, they own the regulators and they own the U.S. Congress.

But they don't own the truth.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 4:13 PM | Report abuse

~~~bertzel,

I responded at 12:29 - check the blog again!

rgr

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 3:14 PM ~~~


Oops...sorry ranger...let me know if the docs were published on line.
thanks.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 4:12 PM | Report abuse

@pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 11:59 AM

OK, I lost the debate...in your fantasies. You need self affirmation.

But I'm willing to give you Hawaii. Not concede but give Hawaii because you're behaving petulantly and I'm a bigger man than you . In return, you must concede on the larger issues: WWII was not fought in the U.S.; and, the Taliban/Afghanistan/Iraq/Panama/Vietnam never attacked the U.S. That these countries or people never attacked us is simply a matter of fact, not even open to debate. And you have not actually debated on *these* issues; for example, you changed the WWII debate to whether Hawaii was part of the U.S.

And then there is the issue of collective bargaining rights for state workers in WI. It is not necessary to deprive them of collective bargaining rights in order to balance the state budget. Do you feel that you are doing so badly in life that state workers must be dragged down to your level? Why not aspire and work towards their level? Isn't that the American way? Sounds more like "crabs in a bucket to me." State workers are middle class folks, probably not as much better off than you as you would think. But it is your intent to punish them.

If one believes in majority rule, wouldn't it stand that we should not had fought the Revolutionary War. Weren't we dragged in the RW by wealthy, white, slave owners who didn't want to pay taxes? I think we should not have fought the RW, but I don't have a lot of information to base that on. Look at what it engendered. What would have happened if we had not fought the RW? We don't know for sure, but I suspect that we would be independent of England anyway.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 4:04 PM | Report abuse

rowens1

Here I went and thought you were serious about discussing alternates to present energy service providers. Instead you devolve to your alleging Big Oil is forcing us all to remain carbon addicts liberal whine. It is my opinion that we consumers drive energy policy and we all love our fix. Until we consumers make choices then it is business as usual. The IPCC and others know this, this has been the goal, change the awareness of our energy consumption, and they have been successful.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Pararanger- your superiority was never in question. I appreciate your attempts to answer my "queries", but what were they again? What could I ask you that would actually enlighten or inform me?

In fact, you have repeatedly questioned me about an energy policy. I have no such policy, nor could I deliver it here with any positive effect.

No, para, your denial of climate science is all I wanted to straighten you out on, and with the bonus of showing you who commands "energy policy" in the U.S. and why science that challenges the goals of BIG OIL will forever be an enemy of good Republicans and their lobbyists for the forseeable future.

Science requires honesty, modesty and humility in all matters and will ultimately be our "way out" of the consuming mess we have made of this planet.

You shouldn't worry about me "advocating for liberals". I simply posted here today to let you know where you are WRONG.

Needless to say, that is "not what you seek".

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 3:42 PM | Report abuse

PTG

Vhttp://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/180_years_accurate_Co2_Chemical_Methods.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 3:41 PM | Report abuse

@pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 11:59 AM

OK, I lost the debate...in your fantasies. You need self affirmation.

If one believes in majority rule, wouldn't it stand that we should not had fought the Revolutionary War. I think we should not have. Look at what it engendered.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 3:36 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner

Don't forget to pay your taxes. Whats up with this in every post?

you have again failed to answer this question,

Why did the IPCC leave out 150 years of published, peer reviewed, cited, data on past CO2 levels, without a word as to the methodology for eliminating this record from their four reports other than this data trashes their entire hypothesis.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 3:26 PM | Report abuse

rowens1,

Funny how I go to great lengths to answer your queries (thanks for the 'straw man' comment) but you avoid the key issues I raise.

I lived next to a young lady who worked for Chevron, part of a small group of highly talented young-guns that worked on their alternative energy stuff. She had a lot of room to maneuver and apply independent thought without any of the 'protectionism' you stipulate that 'must' be the guiding principle for all oil companies.

Stay in your comfort zone rowens1; you're a good advocate for Liberals but you fall short of the bipartisan, intelligent, far-reaching discussion I seek. Best of luck.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 3:23 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet

"Why did the IPCC leave out 150 years of published, peer reviewed, cited, data on past CO2 levels, without a word as to the methodology for eliminating this record from their four reports other than this data trashes their entire hypothesis."

This is a fair question. But where is this 150 years of data? You are referring to it, so you must have a link to it. Where is the mythical data? Anyone can say that such data exists; producing it is another matter. Right?

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 3:22 PM | Report abuse

thats nice...guess I missed that post.

Still waiting for ranger to post info I asked for or at least respond.

I have no paranoia...tho I can't say the same for you.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 3:00 PM

---------------------

bertzel,

I responded at 12:29 - check the blog again!

rgr

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 3:14 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet

I'm sure you haven't seen the movie "The Great Global Warming Swindle". but what the hey. It's anti-AGW, so it must be right. You might want to read George Monbiot's "Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change" at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/mar/13/science.media

When the "science" in that movie has not been debunked, the scientists whose work is on display therein have been misrepresented. Of Director Martin Durkin, Monbiot writes:

"In 1998, the Independent Television Commission found that, when making a similar series, he had "misled" his interviewees about "the content and purpose of the programmes". Their views had been "distorted through selective editing". Channel 4 had to make a prime-time apology."

And many people feel as I do: the oil industry no long has to pay anyone to carry water for them since there many uninformed people willing to do so.

True research means looking at both sides of an issue--you're not there yet. And going back to NASA/OCO, you could have found out the truth, but you just weren't interested.

Don't forget to pay your taxes.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 3:08 PM | Report abuse

~~~~~~~ That, or depend on actual Science; and we all know where that pernicious road leads.
Posted by: jonroesler~~~

No, 'we' don't know where that pernicious road leads.
Why don't' you explain?
Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 9:57 AM

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Pararanger- Thank goodness your straw dogs don't bleed!

I appreciate the great length you have gone to explain why anti-science is not the exclusive realm of the "modern" conservatives.

You could have saved space by simply acknowledging that our Republican Party is the Party of BIG OIL (among others) and they employ plenty of scientists. Many are to help locate and extract more carbon resources. But many more are hired and sustained for the pure purpose of protecting the dominance of U.S. Oil interests here and around the world.

I detect a conflict between the intellectual honesty required by scientific inquiry and working for the Koch's. Denial of that point still won't get Exxon Mobil to pay a dime in corporate taxes but millions to stop any regulation or EPA enforcement actions.

See?

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 3:01 PM | Report abuse

bertzel your paranoia is showing again. The reading comment was a response to PTG telling me I cant read

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 1:08 PM


thats nice...guess I missed that post.

Still waiting for ranger to post info I asked for or at least respond.

I have no paranoia...tho I can't say the same for you.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Your "Hybrid" Editorial Cartoon underscores your status as a $##@@((&&___ National Treasure. Herb Block déjà vu.

Sincere Thanks!

Posted by: lufrank1 | February 21, 2011 2:59 PM | Report abuse

"...It may be a Chinese or Indian scientist that figures out the free clean energy solution but it will not be in a China or India research facility...."

You do declare! I'm not sure where the breakthroughs will come from (or not come from as you declare), but please note what the tea party has decided to CUT from the federal spending....

The stupidest of all as an example: the NIH. Arguably the most innovative, the most cost-effective, the envy of the whole world in scientific contribution.

An insult? TO ME IT IS!

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 2:48 PM | Report abuse

To rowens1,

No let down (other than 'no' proposed energy policy). But you made a decent argument about AGW. Yes, useful science may be forthcoming from China or India but their governments are rife with corruption and competing ideas. They cannot get more than 60% of their food to market before it rots. China has shot here; but India is a crap-shoot in this regard. I do not acknowledge 'anti-science' attitudes among Conservatives. That is a perception, not a reality, derived from:

1 - Conservative desire for creationsim to be part of the curriculum.
2 - The use of climate change theory to justify the diminunization of US power.
3 - Liberal propaganda such as:
* All Conservatives are dumb hicks
* Every Conservative President is dumb.
4 - Liberals, based on their superior knowledge derived from NE Liberal academic institutions cannot be challenged, to whit, climate change theory is valid and beyond protestation (which is exactly the way it was rolled out).

As daly has rolled out time and again, there are serious challenges to climate change theory yet there is no real debate going on in the States. Lot's of name-calling, you bet, but not much debate. Let's face it: solutions to the professed hazards of climate change are pretty draconian. Despite the fluffy talk about a green-economy, there will be a high price to pay economically. In US political terms, the Democrats use climate change as a hammer against perceived GOP power and strategy. The GOP wants to find more fossil fuels ($$; jobs; cheaper oil). The Dems want to blunt those thoughts to appeal to their Liberal tendencies, regardless of the expense. In World political terms, less powerful nations want to reduce US power by reducing US energy consumption and access to natural resources. If there was a world climate change agreement, nations like the US would have to pay for carbon output penalties to nations like Bangladesh that allegedly would be harmed by climate change. I'm not really stoked about paying out US tax dollars to third-world countries because we're burning coal.

It's not a reach then to understand that Conservatives find climate change theory a bit suspicious and a bit convenient for our Liberal protagonists.

I've listened to this debate rage at suit and tie places in London for a couple of years. Plenty of emotion and facts thrown at both sides. The University of East Anglia, of climate change email-gate fame, also gives me pause. UEA is Left of Harvard on a lot of topics (I get the pleasure of listening to their professors opine on the BBC from time to time). They make me wonder if their positions on many subjects follow the facts; or they arrange facts to justify their positions.

The useful debate between Conservatives and Liberals isn't the science anymore - I doubt either side is going to give in much - it's our energy policy. We'll see how much pain - levels of survival - Liberals are willing to accept.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

pete1013

I am in agreement , many small generation facilities rather than a few big ones. This is a major shift in how to provide the service.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 2:40 PM | Report abuse

You do acknowledge anti-science attitudes are encouraged and used by the right, don't you?

More insults?

The depth and breadth of anti science or non science has NO political bounds.

It may be a Chinese or Indian scientist that figures out the free clean energy solution but it will not be in a China or India research facility.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 2:30 PM | Report abuse

Mathematically, the probability is very high that scientific breakthroughs WILL come from India or China.

You do acknowledge anti-science attitudes are encouraged and used by the right, don't you? I wouldjust as quickly turn on anti-science from the left if it ever got to the volume and 'rancor' we endure from the right. They successfully have turned the AGW debate (and all others) into mush.

Sorry to let you down.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 2:00 PM | Report abuse

Hydro-electric: why not have turbines at the mouth of the Chesapeake? The Hudson? the Mississippi? San Francisco Bay? Juan de Fuca Strait? Constant, predictable flow of energy free for the taking.

Geo-thermal: turbines driven by the heat of the Earth's creamy, molten center.

And for real sci-fi: solar energy collected in space then beamed to Earth by microwaves.

3 sources of endless, clean, free energy. No corn, no nukes, no fossil fuels. The tech required exists today, so minimal r&d is required. The initial set up costs may be high, but the long term benefits would far exceed the short term expenditures.

Posted by: pete1013 | February 21, 2011 1:46 PM | Report abuse

China and India will follow, or they might even *lead*.

Posted by: rowens1

-----------------------

Without rancor, I can tell you it's a pipe-dream to get the Chinese to effectively 'lead' in this regard. Too many people, too few resources. The Indians are even worse. Great minds in both countries but they atrophy (like their marketable goods) within their respective governments. The Chinese are on a good run at the moment but outside of the cities, they have formidable issues. The Indians have too little government and too much pride. Only their pockets of Western influence such as Bangalore hold out much hope in the near term.

Neither country will follow the US lead here. Why should they? We're hypocrites in this regard - we've been using up our resources like drunken sailors for years.

Well, not much in the way of energy policy recommendations from you but you were able to 'almost' stay out of the politics gutter today. Commendable. I can see you've tacked back to Liberal TPs in your most recent posts. Unfortunate.

The energy policy debate will be held soon, I hope. But I'm betting it will be 2012 until we square off with a useful debate on that issue.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 1:39 PM | Report abuse

Driving electric cars only shifts the fuel from one point to another today. Yes, in a zero sum equation. But much more electricity is generated and then wasted, simply to meet the peak demand.

Off-peak electric power is cheaper and otherwise would be wasted. I'm not sure electric vehicles meet everyone's needs, but gasoline may become unaffordable sooner than we think. Arguably, it was the $4 gas on top of the economic crisis that ultimately did in the middle class, one gallon at a time.

"Hope for the best, plan for the worst".

That is both reasonable and responsible. Coal-powered cars is not a panacea, but it might make Tom Toles' cartoon today less painful when it comes.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 1:29 PM | Report abuse

rowens1

I don't know much about politics as you state it there. I do know that electricity production is not a large profit center. The amount of electric we use is nearly beyond comprehension. Driving electric cars only shifts the fuel from one point to another today. Changing the conversation from killing mother to preserving assets will get smarter solutions.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 1:20 PM | Report abuse

China and India are surely following the post-industrial curve, as are we.

But we can lead, if we embrace the science that has brought us here.

We can lead if we elevate science and discovery to its rightful role in "what do we do next?"

We can lead and the same curve of post-industrial development will lengthen our stay as a specie.

Or we can allow the voices of old oilmen and investment capitalists to shred our nest and plan for killing when resources cannot be mustered to care for us all.

Fear, that great motivator, is a salesman who doesn't even care what product is being pushed, so long as profits and power pile up to satisfy that addictive, destructive capitalist impulse.

China and India will follow, or they might even *lead*.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 1:16 PM | Report abuse

Bingo. If the climate change diaspora is relying on ptgrunner's massive comprehension skills to define and win their argument, then the gloom and doom warmers are in a world of hurt.

Posted by: pararanger22 |

They are already in a world of hurt ranger.

bertzel your paranoia is showing again. The reading comment was a response to PTG telling me I cant read

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Dalyplanet. I brought up entropy to avoid the drudgery of dealing with rigid denialist thinking. We can begin a lot farther down the field than repudiation of "this guy's data (and his biases both real and imagined) versus that guy's data."

Yes, the world is decaying and falling apart, albeit in ways and means we don't observe and some we think we do.

I find the anti-science nature of the AGW arguments to be a smokescreen for the right wing goal of continuing business as usual: Maximization of net profit in the short run.

Anything coming out of that camp is for their singular goal. They hate science if they can't use it to power and profits.

My interest is quieting disingenuous ideologues. Maybe it doesn't hurt to simply provide a more reasonable perspective to those who haven't yet accepted the Republican aim to consume everything of use on this beautiful blue planet.

Stewardship is a much better ideological place for skeptics to hang out until the truth is self-evident.

Only one party believes reducing tax revenues increases tax revenues.

Only one party believes layoffs of government workers "creates jobs".

Only one party hates abortion and stops all attempts at prevention.

It goes on and on.

I'd say, if you want credibility, distance yourself quickly.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 1:04 PM | Report abuse

so dave...tell us what you really think.
What is your take on "artificial intelligence", which scientists are currently trying to perfect? Do you know that some even believe they will actually have a soul? Some type of religion I guess, that believes even a slab of wood contains a soul....

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 12:56 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your response. I am not trying to make a "proof" in the matter of AGW or even corn carryovers. I am simply trying to appeal to your sense of what is most LIKELY, given (yes, entropy) the vast changes human technological advancement has achieved, both in areas of extraction and of biotechical science in agriculture.

What I would conclude is most *likely* is that human pressures on this planet, in all its forms, strongly pre-supposes human-assisted and unforeseen changes that we should acknowledge and act upon- again, in order to *slow* the inevitable death of old mother earth's ability to sustain us.

Although you present some intelligence and education on these matters, your conclusions seem non-sequitor- following the crazy political right wing denial.

And that's what made me post today. Reason is the only buoy I can throw you as you seem to swim in the seas of ideology with the party-of-NO.

Posted by: rowens1

--------------------------

You've presented a useful clarification to your original post. This is a tidy paragraph:

"What I would conclude is most *likely* is that human pressures on this planet, in all its forms, strongly pre-supposes human-assisted and unforeseen changes that we should acknowledge and act upon- again, in order to *slow* the inevitable death of old mother earth's ability to sustain us."

A good example would be CFC, thus, ozone depletion.

No buoy required. I'm Conservative in most areas but I'm pragmatic when required.

Stepping aside from the usual rhetoric (I will not jump on your response); and setting aside the climate change arguments, (1) what do you think we should do with US energy policy; and (2) given China and India are going to basically continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere regardless of modifications to US policy, where does that leave us? I am not saying that it is useless to do something but in the aggregate, I see the US doing cheetah flips to reduce CO2 from our pipes but not accomplishing much from a planet-wide perspective.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 12:52 PM | Report abuse

~~~~You gotta problem with that?~~~~

NO I am probably on the same page as you. My concern is doing something out of fear and ignorance and in a hurry as opposed to doing the right thing or better thing from an enlightened approach.

I am not sure how entropy applied to the human condition in your post relates to my reference regarding movement of energy or heat. The time is now for planning a better way of providing the services that carbon allows. Trying to retrofit 19th and 20th century technology and infrastructure is not the best methodology in my opinion.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Maybe we will someday find it possible to make machines with feelings. Perhaps we ourselves are merely very complex machines.
Posted by: samsara15

My Understanding...
We have two kinds of major categories of reality. One is physical reality and the other is non-physical reality.
People's bodies for example are a physical reality.
Our thoughts, concepts, language, economics, mathematics and ability to make choices are non-physical realities.
Physical reality is based on mechanics, energy, physical construct, functional transition, physical laws and proximity.
Non-physical choices, laws, attributes, design, function, countinuity, principals and decisions are all a function of intelligence which provides a functional reality to experience life.
People depend on their intelligence to survive. If they do not use their intelligence properly; they will not survive.
We eat and breathe to survive because they are physical necessities.
We have social systems and moral principles in order to survive.
If we are going to survive; we are going to have to use our intelligence to do what is necessary to survive.
Stupid is suicidal.
Just a non-physical reminder...
Dave

Posted by: OckamsRazor | February 21, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

~~As to
~~~~material that you have not read, and wouldn't/couldn't understand~~~~

I have stated before that it is you with the reading and comprehension problem.
Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 12:24 PM ~~~

Wow...directed at me planet???
Post it and try me! That is if there is anything to actually post.
Then again...maybe I do have a reading/ comprehension problem when it comes to innuendoes.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 12:41 PM | Report abuse

ptg

Just work on one point then. Why did the IPCC leave out 150 years of published, peer reviewed, cited, data on past CO2 levels, without a word as to the methodology for eliminating this record from their four reports other than this data trashes their entire hypothesis.

As to
~~~~material that you have not read, and wouldn't/couldn't understand~~~~

I have stated before that it is you with the reading and comprehension problem.


Posted by: dalyplanet

--------------------

Bingo. If the climate change diaspora is relying on ptgrunner's massive comprehension skills to define and win their argument, then the gloom and doom warmers are in a world of hurt.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Thank you for your response. I am not trying to make a "proof" in the matter of AGW or even corn carryovers. I am simply trying to appeal to your sense of what is most LIKELY, given (yes, entropy) the vast changes human technological advancement has achieved, both in areas of extraction and of biotechical science in agriculture.

What I would conclude is most *likely* is that human pressures on this planet, in all its forms, strongly pre-supposes human-assisted and unforeseen changes that we should acknowledge and act upon- again, in order to *slow* the inevitable death of old mother earth's ability to sustain us.

Although you present some intelligence and education on these matters, your conclusions seem non-sequitor- following the crazy political right wing denial.

And that's what made me post today. Reason is the only buoy I can throw you as you seem to swim in the seas of ideology with the party-of-NO.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

~~What do you think?
Posted by: pararanger22 ~~

Here's what I think. dalyplanet can answer for his/her self. dalyplanet sounds as though he/she is a fan of Tim Searchinger, whose name I find kind of humorous considering his title.
Also ranger, I am not familiar with the 'wave' concept or all that it entails and would have to read up on it in order to give you my opinion.Perhaps you have a link to these dissertations? I don't need to read up on wind. Am familiar with that (lol) Otherwise I will resort to google sometime in the future.
I will add that, using the 'benefits mother nature has to offer', in all aspects, including medical advancement, is a very good idea.


Posted by: bertzel


---------------------

Yes, dalyplanet can answer for his/her self, true enough.

The dissertations were from classmates last year at KCL - I'll see if I can get the references at least/not sure if their papers were published. Wave energy seems like a really sound alternative energy if we're willing to give up a bit of coast line which is politically debatable.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 12:29 PM | Report abuse

ptg

Just work on one point then. Why did the IPCC leave out 150 years of published, peer reviewed, cited, data on past CO2 levels, without a word as to the methodology for eliminating this record from their four reports other than this data trashes their entire hypothesis.

As to
~~~~material that you have not read, and wouldn't/couldn't understand~~~~

I have stated before that it is you with the reading and comprehension problem.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 12:24 PM | Report abuse

pararanger22's sarcasm does not escape me, nor does the sheer human arrogance that would predict the outcome ("Heat Death")of a near-infinite number of changes whose collective result is probably unknowable.

A more modest conclusion would be to try to slow the process of entropy where billions of earth's residents, both present and future, find their collective destiny.
------------------------------
Regarding the price of corn: as with the above, many factors have combined to bring the "carryover" of this critical grain to a shorter and shorter time frame. Ethanol is surely one factor, but the droughts and floods in Asia also contribute to grain stock carryouts.

I suggest you put all that in your "outcomes" list, and draw conclusions if you wish. If you always draw the same conclusions despite new information, I will score your opinions accordingly.

Posted by: rowens1

--------------------

Good response. You made an interesting argument. But you earned the sarcasm given the gauntlet you threw down on thermodynamics. What you've presented on your post(s) does not represent an apples-to-apples argument regarding climate change theory, i.e., 2d law of thermodyanmics, thus, climate change. Until you make your case in this regard (yes, I'll be glad to look at a website), you will struggle to make such a strong point.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Well, Tom. There's always the "Science of Evolution."

Posted by: quiensabe | February 21, 2011 12:17 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet- your "science" references give you some credence as I believe any scientist would keep an open mind about subjects as broad and complex as that of the relationship between digging up, pumping, and burning of vast amounts of stored carbon.

However, you seem to be dangerously close as the pararanger to the drawing of conclusions with incomplete narrow data sources.

I would suggest, as I did to the pararanger, a more modest conclusion, "...that would try to slow the process of entropy, where billions of earth's residents, both present and future, find their collective destiny..."

You gotta problem with that?

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 12:11 PM | Report abuse

~~What do you think?
Posted by: pararanger22 ~~

Here's what I think. dalyplanet can answer for his/her self. dalyplanet sounds as though he/she is a fan of Tim Searchinger, whose name I find kind of humorous considering his title.
Also ranger, I am not familiar with the 'wave' concept or all that it entails and would have to read up on it in order to give you my opinion.Perhaps you have a link to these dissertations? I don't need to read up on wind. Am familiar with that (lol) Otherwise I will resort to google sometime in the future.
I will add that, using the 'benefits mother nature has to offer', in all aspects, including medical advancement, is a very good idea.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 12:09 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner,

Fact: Hawaii was a U.S. Territory during WWII, commensurate with US laws regarding US territories.

Your 'it wasn't a state' argument doesn't fly. Just another typical juvenile dodge by you.

Fact: Puerto Rico is a commonwealth of the US so yeah, I consider it a part of a US, commensurate with US law regarding commonwealths.

Let's face it, ptgrunner, you trot out red herrings every time you lose on a debate point.

You lost the jobs debate by your own logic but you don't have the courage to admit it. I mean the jobs report in February absolutely crushed your childish argument. I know it still hurts but can't you admit it and move on?

And your posts about the Revolutionary War and the colonists - questions worth asking? - okay, what is your point? Do you wish we had stayed under British rule? Quit playing your cards so close to your vest - tell us your vision of the American Revolution should have unfolded or ... not.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 11:59 AM | Report abuse

In other words, a typical know nothing denier.

Posted by: dennis_donaghey

Typical informative response from a true believer. Call some names and skip the discussion of the science. You guys use the word as a shield and hide behind it.

What about my point restated by Dr Gray regarding 150 years of CO2 measurements covered up or ignored. This missing data creates a real problem with the AGW hypothesis. Also tell me why we have fantastic satellite temperature data but this data was included briefly and then removed from the archaic system used to guess global temps today.

I will answer, the satellite data conflicts with the hypothesis. Just like the measured CO2 data from 1810 to 1960 conflicts with the hypothesis.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 11:56 AM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 8:51 PM

You're doing it again. Your cutting and pasting AGW denier material that you have not read, and wouldn't/couldn't understand, as if it were gospel. It's really impossible to refute all the junk you post because I insist on being on solid ground and doing the research--I have to understand and have some verification of what I'm posting. This takes some time. And it does no good; because it does not fit your position on AGW, you dismiss it (NASA/OCO).

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 11:43 AM | Report abuse

pararanger22's sarcasm does not escape me, nor does the sheer human arrogance that would predict the outcome ("Heat Death")of a near-infinite number of changes whose collective result is probably unknowable.

A more modest conclusion would be to try to slow the process of entropy where billions of earth's residents, both present and future, find their collective destiny.
------------------------------
Regarding the price of corn: as with the above, many factors have combined to bring the "carryover" of this critical grain to a shorter and shorter time frame. Ethanol is surely one factor, but the droughts and floods in Asia also contribute to grain stock carryouts.

I suggest you put all that in your "outcomes" list, and draw conclusions if you wish. If you always draw the same conclusions despite new information, I will score your opinions accordingly.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Maybe we will someday find it possible to make machines with feelings. Perhaps we ourselves are merely very complex machines.

Posted by: samsara15 | February 21, 2011 11:35 AM | Report abuse

@pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 6:48 AM

My jobs rant. Well, where are the jobs. The GOP promised jobs. More to the point, where is their jobs program? That was job number 1 for them. They have no jobs program. They said jobs were the most important thing, but they have no jobs program. So again, where are the jobs?

No, Hawaii was not part of the U.S. They were not a state during WWII. Do you consider Puerto Rico to currently be part of the U.S.? I don't think so. My original point was that the Taliban did not attack the U.S. and that no wars have been fought in the U.S. It's real simple--the Taliban did not attack the U.S. I concede that you successfully baited and switched the debate. There was the Civil War, but that was entirely self-inflicted. You brought up Pearl Harbor and WWII. Pearl Harbor was a single attack. WWII was not fought in U.S.--check the history books. WWII was fought in various parts of the world (Europe, Asia, Africa, the Pacific) , but it was not fought in this country. This is elementary school stuff.

As for the Revolutionary War, if 33% of colonists supporting the war was enough to take the colonists to war, would 25% or 20% or 15% or 10% also have been enough? What would the consequences been if we had not gone to war with England? As much as it pains you to think, these are questions worth asking. We can't know the answer to the last question, but why not ask it.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 21, 2011 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Corn has risen from $2.10 a bushel in Sept 2006 $7.20 a bushel today. Experts attribute at least 50% of this rise is due to demand from ethanol. Some attribute 85% of the increase is due to ethanol.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Corn has risen from $2.10 a bushel in Sept 2006 $7.20 a bushel today. Experts attribute at least 50% of this rise is due to demand from ethanol. Some attribute 85% of the increase is due to ethanol.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 10:54 AM | Report abuse

~~~Food to Fuel, the first stupid cure for alleged AGW has raised food prices.
CCS the next stupid cure for alleged AGW will raise food prices.
Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 6:34 PM

That's bullcrap...you cannot put ALL blame for increased prices on "Food to Fuel".
Many other factors also involved. Smaller packaging, increased prices have been going on for several years. Perhaps you would like to explain to us why gas prices are continually on the rise.

Posted by: bertzel

--------------------

bertzel,

I'm not sure dalyplanet is putting 'all' the blame on food to fuel for rising food prices. I do agree with you, that's not the only reason for high food prices.

I do question why we spend so much in terms of resources on food to fuel programs. They seem to be ultimately self-defeating but I don't know enough about them.

I've read two interesting dissertations on wind and wave energy. Wind has proven useful, we know, but wave energy has a future too.

What do you think?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I would try to paraphrase it thus: All systems are in a state of change, a state of decay marked by the complex systems degrading toward less complexity.

There has never been any law or observable process that does not show this state of entropy- NONE.

Posted by: rowens1

Precisely. This is the law that is broken or severely bent in AGW hypothesis. Radiating heat from the cooler troposphere (higher entropy less energy cooler) to the surface of the Earth (lower entropy higher energy warmer) does not make sense.

The prize is stopping burning food for fuel and preventing widespread CCS implementation that will consume fuel 40% to 50% faster than at today's rate for the same electrical output. These two plans will cause far more harm than good.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 10:32 AM | Report abuse

~~~Food to Fuel, the first stupid cure for alleged AGW has raised food prices.
CCS the next stupid cure for alleged AGW will raise food prices.
Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 6:34 PM

That's bullcrap...you cannot put ALL blame for increased prices on "Food to Fuel".
Many other factors also involved. Smaller packaging, increased prices have been going on for several years. Perhaps you would like to explain to us why gas prices are continually on the rise.

Posted by: bertzel | February 21, 2011 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Cant we outsource all this boring stuff and go back to jepardy

Posted by: schmidt1 | February 21, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

Cant we outsource all this boring stuff and go back to jepardy

Posted by: schmidt1 | February 21, 2011 10:18 AM | Report abuse

If the climate-change denier is to truly prove it a hoax, they must first show that the earth, its organisms, its environment and resources, even its orbit are NOT subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

...and good luck with that little task.

Posted by: rowens1

--------------------

Whoa - bravo rowens1! That does it for me.

I hereby, happily relinquish all of my doubts about AGW because I can't argue against the universally accepted, inviolate theory of the 2d Law of Thermodynamics and it's central, infallible, logical, integral attachment to climate change theory.

What was I thinking?

Dalyplanet, enter the climate change denier circle of shame and remain there whilst thermodynamic-boy (aka rowens1) takes you to the woodshed. We're all on our way to 'heat death' anyway so don't argue with him.

Then again, there is the Gibb's paradox to consider....

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 10:12 AM | Report abuse

How about the end of the crony union, radical environmentalist, leftwing media Democrat alternative reality era and the start of the new era of reality? This battle is taking place in Wisconsin and Democrats know they will lose so they uncivilly run and hide and the Washington Post covers their tracks by running a small story today on the last page A16.

Posted by: billybeer6 | February 21, 2011 10:10 AM | Report abuse


On the other hand, when ZEVs are recharged from electricity exclusively generated by coal-fired plants, they produce approximately the same greenhouse gas emissions as internal combustion engine vehicles[6].

A joule is a joule is a joule

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I, for one, welcome our new computer overlords.

"More Human than Human" ~ the Tyrell Corp.

Posted by: pete1013 | February 21, 2011 9:52 AM | Report abuse

Regarding the Global Warming topic, pursued obsessively as if there were going to be a big prize for proving it a hoax, I would like to simply point out the the earth, the solar system, the galaxies and all the life systems here on our planet are subject to one law- a law never disproven:

That is the second law of thermodynamics- the law of entropy.

I would try to paraphrase it thus: All systems are in a state of change, a state of decay marked by the complex systems degrading toward less complexity.

There has never been any law or observable process that does not show this state of entropy- NONE.

If the climate-change denier is to truly prove it a hoax, they must first show that the earth, its organisms, its environment and resources, even its orbit are NOT subject to the second law of thermodynamics.

...and good luck with that little task.

Posted by: rowens1 | February 21, 2011 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Read about Dr. Vincent Gray and you will find 1. he is a chemist, not a climatologist. 2. He wasn't a part of the IPCC at all. 3. His funding is hidden from public scrutiny yet he shills for groups funded by Exxon Mobil. 4. To be an "expert reviewer one must only request a look at the draft. 5. He has submitted no peer reviewed publications.

In other words, a typical know nothing denier.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/05/you_too_can_be_a_leading_clima.php

Posted by: dennis_donaghey | February 21, 2011 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: nakedempire:

Cheap oil is killing the economy.

-------------------

Gotta love those Liberals and their logic skills. They're soooo smart that they endorse the cunning plan of raising the price of oil and collecting more taxes to turn the economy around.

Heck, don't all of us want to pay $8.50 per gallon of gas like the UK? It's working for them, right?

Liberalism continues it's predictable death-spiral.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Cheap oil is killing the economy. We have no incentive to innovate. nakedempire welcomes the end of cheap oil and thus the end of a 1000 base global empire that drains resources from our kids.

http://nakedempire.wordpress.com/

Posted by: nakedempire | February 21, 2011 7:39 AM | Report abuse

The cartoon would make more sense if it were a cement SUV stuck up a cul de sac without a fill up and the title was "End of the car era."

Posted by: squier13 | February 21, 2011 7:11 AM | Report abuse

The machine was faster on the draw, not smarter. I bet both those guys knew most, if not all, of the answers Watson beat them to. He beat them to the buzzer and there wasn't a chance it would buzz in early and get locked out either, because it's a machine. That's the way of Jeopardy but still it's something to consider.

Also from what I can see it was essentially a complicated search engine. There's more to intelligence than storing and retrieving data based on key words. Look at the answers it got wrong. Some of those weren't even related to the questions. A human would know that. A big step forward but still a long way to go.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr

-------------------

I agree but this machine did a lot better than the last one if I recall correctly. The Singularity folks believe that computers will surpass human intelligence in 2045, thus becoming self-aware. Not sure if I buy the scary 'sky-net' stuff but harkening back to the days of my Tandy 1000 in 1986, it seems like we've come a long, long way in a short time.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 6:57 AM | Report abuse

I would disagree that pointing out that IPCC scientists have tossed out data sets of measured CO2 from 1810 to 1960 invalidating their claim that CO2 has never been higher than the present is a cherry pick at all. These are published data sets of 90,000 + measured CO2 levels done by respected and notable scientists. The whole premise of human caused warming depends on ignoring this historical data. Why is this topic not included or discussed in any IPCC report 1 through 4? All IPCC reports assert that Keeler is the first to systematically measure CO2 and this assertion is false. Absent this important historical data leaves many peripheral scientists looking for a carbon fingerprint instead of other possible causation's for warming. Couple this with bending or breaking the laws of thermodynamics creates significant problems with the IPCC statements on causality regarding CO2. I have asked many times here for links to independent proof that CO2 is driving warming and have only been directed to opinion sites or IPCC. My own research has discovered a few chemistry\physics approaches and all are in disagreement with IPCC predictions. I have alluded several times to this missing measured CO2 data with the hope that someone would provide a proof that is valid regarding IPCC claims and there has been none.

Posted by: dalyplanet

---------------------

Excellent analysis of the issues and questions surrounding historical examples of CO2 production.

I'm interested to see if any of your antagonists produces a proper link to the CO2 fountain of knowledge.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 6:52 AM | Report abuse

Of course the world is not perfect, nor is the U.S. It's the hypocrisy of our words--they do not match our deeds-- that bothers me.


Posted by: ptgrunner

-------------------------------

ptgrunner,

I'll agree to your last statement above to a degree. What we (the US) wants to do isn't always in agreement with what we're empowered to do.

The real issue with you and Liberals in general is that although you 'feel' strongly about this and that, it doesn't necessarily mean what you 'feel' is valid. This creates one enormous problem: you never admit you're wrong about anything, to whit (2 examples):

1 - Your January jobs rant against the GOP floundered when the February jobs report came out. Your juvenile rant was crushed to the core. Did you admit that? Nope.

2 - Your post on Hawaii not being part of the US in WWII. Totally false. Did you admit that? Nope.

I do not need you to agree with me to come away better informed by our debate. I can handle the jabs like any old military guy can handle 'em so that's okay too. But if you can't cope with losing a tiny discussion point, there is no trust developed, no sense that our debates are in any way useful. Just a rant versus rant.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 21, 2011 6:48 AM | Report abuse

jayrayinnv -- what's the difference between "creatures of leisure" and "unemployed, homeless, and starving"?

Until we know the answer to that question, maybe we should stop building robots to do jobs humans used to. Or build social programs to house and feed the unemployed.

Posted by: egc52556 | February 21, 2011 6:38 AM | Report abuse

On the topic of Tom's column, an interesting book related to the last couple of sentences in the final paragraph is "Who Needs Emotions?: The Brain Meets the Robot," edited by Jean-Marc Fellous and Michael Arbib. The thing that I took away from reading the book is not that the study of emotional responses in intelligent systems is a mature field (it isn't, yet), but that it has become a respectable field of study. Stay tuned! Greg Benford's "Beyond Human" is also a worthwhile book.

Posted by: apn3206 | February 21, 2011 12:27 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: ptgrunner

Your argument is to falsely state that a past measurement of CO2 at 480 ppmv is today's measurement and that Dr Gray has no longer subscribed to IPCC conclusions since his review of the latest IPCC report is a very poor argument. No science rebuttal given or expected from you as it appears your reading level was arrested at the third grade.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 21, 2011 12:11 AM | Report abuse

daly, it does seem to me that you're maybe doing just a teensy bit of cherry-picking yourself, and I wasn't even intending to address any one in particular but only the larger issue... by pointing out the difficulty in "proving" the theory purely by experimentation. The point being that, we have no "control" against which to judge the current situation. Ears burning or something?

Posted by: jonroesler |

I would disagree that pointing out that IPCC scientists have tossed out data sets of measured CO2 from 1810 to 1960 invalidating their claim that CO2 has never been higher than the present is a cherry pick at all. These are published data sets of 90,000 + measured CO2 levels done by respected and notable scientists. The whole premise of human caused warming depends on ignoring this historical data. Why is this topic not included or discussed in any IPCC report 1 through 4? All IPCC reports assert that Keeler is the first to systematically measure CO2 and this assertion is false. Absent this important historical data leaves many peripheral scientists looking for a carbon fingerprint instead of other possible causation's for warming. Couple this with bending or breaking the laws of thermodynamics creates significant problems with the IPCC statements on causality regarding CO2. I have asked many times here for links to independent proof that CO2 is driving warming and have only been directed to opinion sites or IPCC. My own research has discovered a few chemistry\physics approaches and all are in disagreement with IPCC predictions. I have alluded several times to this missing measured CO2 data with the hope that someone would provide a proof that is valid regarding IPCC claims and there has been none.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 11:39 PM | Report abuse

@pararanger22 | February 20, 2011 7:52 PM

You did some research. Good for you. You're getting a bit angry. Calm down. Take your medications.

You complain about me seeing the world in black and white. But isn't that what you do? *I* lived through the 1960s, the Vietnam war, the 1970s, the destructive Reagan 1980s, etc. I *question* things. I don't see the world in black and white. It's a complicated place. Maybe the U.S. should do things differently. Maybe not go to war at the drop of a hat. Support people, not autocratic governments.

Yep, many colonists were apparently dragged into Rev. War with England...that is, if you say so. Slightly less than 33% of the colonists favored the war with England. NOT MY FAULT! Not my fault that the Taliban did not attack us. Nor did Afghanistan or Pakistan or Iraq. Nor did Panama or North Korea (1950s) or Vietnam. Nor do I think that we should support authoritarian regimes in Egypt, Yeman, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. simply because they would do as we wished to their own people. I've seen the hypocrisy there for many years. And I did not waste your father's time in Vietnam; HE did. The people demonstrating here were not only trying to avoid going to Vietnam, they were trying to bring the U.S. military home. 58,000 Americans dead, millions of Southeast Asians dead, and all for nothing.

Of course the world is not perfect, nor is the U.S. It's the hypocrisy of our words--they do not match our deeds-- that bothers me.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 20, 2011 11:04 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 9:27 PM

You say that today's atmospheric CO2 concentration is 480 ppmv? I think it's 391.19 ppmv as of Jan. 2011. Maybe it's your phrasing that's confusing.

Of course, I will look into the "science" you present. I will refute the references you provide. But you will not believe the truth.,,because you simply refuse to believe modern science.

BTW, Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University as of April 2006) has been a denier of AGW for some time. Nothing new here.

Posted by: ptgrunner | February 20, 2011 10:42 PM | Report abuse

Tom:
I generally don't agree with too many of your political drawings, but I can definitely agree with this one!

To put it in another perspective, who is really setting government policy on energy? It appears to me it is closer to Larry, Moe and Curly of the Three Stooges as each day passes by with no real action.

Posted by: ARickoverNuke | February 20, 2011 10:12 PM | Report abuse

The machine was faster on the draw, not smarter. I bet both those guys knew most, if not all, of the answers Watson beat them to. He beat them to the buzzer and there wasn't a chance it would buzz in early and get locked out either, because it's a machine. That's the way of Jeopardy but still it's something to consider.

Also from what I can see it was essentially a complicated search engine. There's more to intelligence than storing and retrieving data based on key words. Look at the answers it got wrong. Some of those weren't even related to the questions. A human would know that. A big step forward but still a long way to go.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | February 20, 2011 9:31 PM | Report abuse

The only way to really know is to take a trip over to the 'other' planet Earth, the one that is always exactly on the other side of the sun from our own Earth and which has no human inhabitants but is otherwise exactly like our own, and measure the unspoiled climate there. That, or depend on actual Science; and we all know where that pernicious road leads.

Posted by: jonroesler | February 20, 2011


Here is the bit of REAL SCIENCE that started the change of my mind regarding CAGW. According to IPCC and others one would believe that CO2 measurement started with Keeling. This is false. CO2 in the atmosphere has been measured for nearly 150 years before Keeling. Highly reputable scientists with peer reviewed papers took over 90,000 measurements prior to Keeling. These measurements indicate CO2 levels higher than today.(480 ppmv) These were tossed out and air in ice proxies were substituted for a good fit. Keeling and IPCC tossed the published work of reputable scientists including two Nobel prize winners and substituted ice core bubble proxies. One scientist responsible for 17 major ice core projects questions the accuracy of CO2 ice proxies due to the removal process itself and contamination from drilling fluids. The bottom line is the shape of Keeling's curve becomes meaningless if you include the data sets of actual scientists chemical measurement from 1800 to 1960. IPCC and Keeling cherry picked the start point of CO2 measurement to fit their desired conclusion. So jon I do depend on actual science to follow the road to a correct conclusion regarding man made climate change.

While looking for the data to back this up I found this letter from Dr Grey IPCC science reviewer. A highly qualified new denier. Science is proving that the alarmist claims are overstated at best.

Here is a link to CO2 limited influence on warming. Lot of math but the text does a good job of explaining the physics.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 9:27 PM | Report abuse

And the rest of Dr Gray's

My main complaint with the IPCC is in the methods used to "evaluate" computer models. Proper "validation" of models should involve proved evidence that they are capable of future prediction within the range required, and to a satisfactory level of accuracy. Without this procedure, no self-respecting computer engineer would dare to make use of a model for prediction.

No computer climate model has ever been tested in this way, so none should be used for prediction. They sort of accept this by never permitting the use of the term "prediction", only "projection". But they then go ahead predicting anyway.

There is a basic logical principle that a correlation, however convincing, is not proof of causation. Most scientists pay at least lip service to this principle, but its widespread lack of acceptance by the general public have led to IPCC to explore it as one of their methods of "evaluating" models.

The models are so full of inaccurately known parameters and equations that it is comparatively easy to "fudge" an approximate fit to the few climate sequences that might respond. This sort of evidence is the main feature of most of the current promotional lectures.

The most elaborate of all their "evaluation" techniques is far more dubious. Since they have failed to show that any models are actually capable of prediction, they have decided to "evaluate" them by asking the opinions of those who originate them, people with a financial interest in their success. This has become so complex that many have failed to notice that it has no scientific basis, but is just an assembly of the "gut feelings" of self-styled "experts". It has been developed to a complex web of "likelihoods", all of which are assigned fake "probability" levels.

By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.

I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle, The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.

The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 9:01 PM | Report abuse

More of Dr Grey's letter


The two main "scientific" claims of the IPCC are the claim that "the globe is warming" and "Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible". Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.

To start with the "global warming" claim. It is based on a graph showing that "mean annual global temperature" has been increasing.

This claim fails from two fundamental facts

1. No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made.

How can you derive a "global average" when you do not even have a single "local" average?

What they actually use is the procedure used from 1850, which is to make one measurement a day at the weather station from a maximum/minimum thermometer. The mean of these two is taken to be the average. No statistician could agree that a plausible average can be obtained this way. The potential bias is more than the claimed "global warming.

2. The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected"

It is of interest that frantic efforts to "correct" for these uncorrectable errors have produced mean temperature records for the USA and China which show no overall "warming" at all. If they were able to "correct" the rest, the same result is likely

And, then after all, there has been no "global warming", however measured, for eight years, and this year is all set to be cooling. As a result it is now politically incorrect to speak of "global warming". The buzzword is "Climate Change" which is still blamed on the non-existent "warming"

The other flagship set of data promoted by the IPCC are the figures showing the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide. They have manipulated the data in such a way to persuade us (including most scientists) that this concentration is constant throughout the atmosphere. In order to do this, they refrain from publishing any results which they do not like, and they have suppressed no less than 90,000 measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide made in the last 150 years. Some of these were made by Nobel Prizewinners and all were published in the best scientific journals. Ernst Beck has published on the net all the actual papers.

Why did they do it? It is very subtle. Brush up your maths. In order to calculate the radiative effects of carbon dioxide you have to use a formula involving a logarithm. When such a formula is applied to a set of figures, the low figures have a greater weight in the final average radiation. The figure obtained from the so-called "background figure" is therefore biased in an upwards direction.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.

Dr Gray wrote:

Thank you for your latest article containing your analysis of the limitations of the IPCC and your belief that it is possible for it to be reformed.

I have been an "Expert Reviewer" for the IPCC right from the start and I have submitted a very large number of comments on their drafts. It has recently been revealed that I submitted 1,898 comments on the Final Draft of the current Report. Over the period I have made an intensive study of the data and procedures used by IPCC contributors throughout their whole study range. I have a large library of reprints, books and comments and have published many comments of my own in published papers, a book, and in my occasional newsletter, the current number being 157.

I began with a belief in scientific ethics, that scientists would answer queries honestly, that scientific argument would take place purely on the basis of facts, logic and established scientific and mathematical principles.

Right from the beginning I have had difficulty with this procedure. Penetrating questions often ended without any answer. Comments on the IPCC drafts were rejected without explanation, and attempts to pursue the matter were frustrated indefinitely.

Over the years, as I have learned more about the data and procedures of the IPCC I have found increasing opposition by them to providing explanations, until I have been forced to the conclusion that for significant parts of the work of the IPCC, the data collection and scientific methods employed are unsound. Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organisation from the very beginning. I therefore consider that the IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only "reform" I could envisage, would be its abolition.

Here is a guy right from the IPCC

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 8:45 PM | Report abuse

We haven't even reached the golden era of fossil fuel which is 100 years away? Just think of all the wind and solar power flying jet airliners or charging the libs electric cars.

Posted by: jornolibist | February 20, 2011 8:01 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner (con't),

6- Civil War. You wrote: “The Taliban are fighting and dying in THEIR country for THEIR country, something the people of the US have never had to do. There was nothing honest about Afghanistan OR Iraq.” The Union and the Confederacy both fought in their country for their country you idiot, so yes, you made that war a part of the conversation. If you don’t understand logic, don’t post on this blog.

7 – You wrote: “WWII is about the only war I can give you, but that war was not fought within the U.S. Hawaii was not part of the U.S. at that time. Do you not understand that?” The Territory of Hawaii was a United States territory that existed from July 7, 1898, until August 21, 1959, when it was admitted to the Union as its fiftieth state, the State of Hawaii.

Okay, so really: how dumb are you? On December 7, 1941, Hawaii was a US Territory. Do you not understand that Einstein?

8 – Again with the Taliban. You don’t prescribe to the fact that the Taliban gave OBL safe harbor to hatch his plans, build his network, train his terrorists. OBL didn’t fly those planes into our buildings either but we still can blame him for the attack, right? You are the definition of a mental midget so I understand you don’t get that either.

9 – I’m sure if ptgrunner were King of the World, he would listen to every militant and extremist out there in order to conduct our foreign policy. Yep – those extremists are the first ones I want to consult. Diplomacy is a difficult business – not everything is black and white and I’m not going to go country-by-country with you regarding what our policy should be or should have been. But you are truly infantile if you believe that ‘the oil will still flow, because it benefits everyone for it to flow.’ Plenty of extremists who would love to throw the world into economic shock by shutting down the Suez or the Strait of Hormuz.

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 20, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Absolutely, Mr. Toles. Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence will ultimately make humans creatures of leisure as robots will do everything for us, including building more robots and deciding which robots need to be built.

Asimov foresaw this, he also foresaw the problems. Hopefully we handle this better than we're handling tady's problems.

Posted by: jayrayinnv | February 20, 2011 7:47 PM | Report abuse

ptgrunner,

1 – Union demands for ‘bettering’ themselves delivered US automobiles that were more expensive but of lesser quality than Japanese and German automobiles. Our auto companies are constantly under the gun because of union pressure. German and Japanese auto companies all perform better in US plants in the south because their employees get a fair wage and don’t try to pick the last grape off the vine.

2 – Public unions are not effective for anyone but the public unions. I’m not against the existence of unions in the private sector; but public sector unions are driving us into the ground.

3 – Reagan was one of the greatest Governors California ever had. Everything Conservative governors did for that state has been torn down by Liberals, sucking the state budget dry. California used to be a great place to live. Arnold wasn’t much of a Conservative but he tried to get some balance in the government but was beaten back by the self-licking lollipop of Democrats and public union employees. What an evil combination. Maybe you think city managers should be making $500k a year? How many months leave do you think they should get, 2-3 months? You ignore the greed of the unions in every one of your posts.

4 – You know, you know very little about Afghans or Iraqis. The Afghans and Iraqis have been playing inside baseball with the American military since 2001. Lots of Soldiers have given up a good chunk of their lives helping both of those countries sort themselves out. You really shouldn’t talk about something you know nothing about.

5 – So now we see you are really thinking soundly. We dragged poor innocent colonists into the revolutionary war….guess we should have become a commonwealth of the UK. Are you a Canadian? Queen Elizabeth II's photo in a heart shaped frame sitting on your X-Box in your Mom's basement?

Posted by: pararanger22 | February 20, 2011 7:46 PM | Report abuse

Food to Fuel, the first stupid cure for alleged AGW has raised food prices.

CCS the next stupid cure for alleged AGW will raise food prices.

Posted by: dalyplanet | February 20, 2011 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company