If you want to associate yourself with these climate models by endorsing them and suggesting that they are reliable predictors of climatic conditions 20, 50 or 100 years from now, that is certainly your right. Personally, I am calling BS on them.
It took some repetition like a radio jingle, but I'm now sold by Mojoman's picture of a frozen earth. B-bob's mountains of letters and charts makes me brain hurty. Mojoman-1 Bbob-0
meh. I'll let the all the talking heads debate their graphs and charts and so on on TV. I see no harm in trying to live my life while being at least a bit friendly to the environment and the planet I live on, even if I am not fanatical and obsessed about it.
I find this to be a hilarious response coming from you. When it comes to a discussion about abortion, you think that there is nothing to discuss because it is A) a legal medical procedure and B) a woman's own body-- END OF DISCUSSION. Perhaps you should take a little of your own advice here...
Amen brother. Well said. Hopefully we can all agree on that. In fact, I think George Carlin would agree with that too. May he rest in peace.
Apparently, you haven't listened at all in the abortion threads if you actually believe this is my position.
What you do personally has little to no scientific validity. The models on the other hand have a great deal of validity. So, Personally you can call BS all day long. It's odd that despite your earlier pledge to be open to listening to scientific data, in the end you just personally decide to call BS on the scientific data without any valid data of your own. Remember your frozen earth picture, has already had holes punched in it, and shown how that limited study doesn't match up to the more comprehensive ones.
That is a personal opinion with nothing to back it up, so I will go ahead and believe the scientists whose field is climatology over a random idealogue on a basketball BBS forum. IMO, the biggest benefit that cap and trade could give us is movement towards being free from our dependence on foreign oil. We will be in much better shape when we are not shipping pallets of cash to places like Iran in order to feed our energy needs. Cap and trade is a great first step towards that goal.
I agree that it is desirable for the US to be free from dependence on foreign oil. However, this cap and trade bill will not help to achieve that, except to the extent that it makes gasoline more expensive and unaffordable for many (primarily lower income) Americans, thereby reducing the demand somewhat for the oil from which the gasoline is refined. And without the participation of China and India, any global emissions reduction scheme will not be effective. And hamstringing our economy with the costs associated with this program will only increase the costs of production here in the US, while China and India will have no comparable costs to pass on. The result will be lost jobs and reduced competitevness for US based businesses. No sir, this is just not good policy.
If you would like to discuss abortion, I will be happy to, but we have been admonished in the recent past to stop threadjacking, so I will refrain from debating that topic in this thread.
Exactly, this bill is the beginning of a change in demand for oil. We need to shift the demand curve so that we use less oil and as a result, import less oil. So, your argument is that this bill will not help to achieve the goal except for the one area where it will help to achieve that goal? How did you get back to "global emissions reduction?" We aren't talking about global emissions, we are talking about the United States' dependence on foreign sources of energy, a goal that we will (by your own admission) begin to achieve through cap and trade. Besides, the current cap and trade bill will help businesses that have already moved to clean energy by allowing them to sell their emissions quotas to other businesses. It will encourage American businesses to increase their investments in clean energy, which will create jobs to offset any job losses in the oil and gas sector. In addition, by lighting a fire under our clean energy businesses (and providing them funds) to improve their technology, we can regain the technological edge that we are currently giving up to China (see the recent thread discussing that issue). Only for idealogues and people dependent on coal, oil, and gas for their income.
No, his syntax, rhythm and buzzwords are very different. The obstinance of his ill-informed, misguided point of view is close though. It just lacks the lovableness. A key Democratic senator said Tuesday that he could not support the Senate's global warming bill in its current form, even as President Obama praised the legislation and Democrats moved to push it through committee. Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, said at the start of a series of hearings in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that he had "serious reservations" Gosh I wonder if Senator Baucus takes any campaign money from coal PACs?
I think there is a good chance MM is TJ. I think he's taking on a different persona and consciously changing his posting style.
Two things are abundantly clear in this thread. 1. MojoMan loves to go to the "just because I am not politically correct means you guys hate me" line of argument. 2. B-Bob is an uberdork. I mean, really, it is beyond salvation. Did he really just use projecting saliva while speaking as an example of noise in a past and projecting model? Uber-to-the-dork. It really makes me happy, though. I will always know that even at my lowest points of high dorkendom, I will never be so bad as the B-Bob
I love you people as well. And I am having a little fun. If anyone wants a summary, just say the word, and I can break it down sans spittle and charts. It's very simple to debunk the points our poor put-upon friend has advanced.
On #2, we all knew this with our short-lived interest in the cord-ealis effect thread. But to be fair, I still wonder about what happens to cords when you wear them in the southern hemisphere.
Dorky academic handle? My moniker evokes syphilitic gun running in Northern Africa and we all know that that is super awesome. Don't be mad just because your CV page on the school website has a picture of you wearing a turtleneck under a polo shirt all tucked into a pair of snazzy jorts. In all fairness, I know the rough chemical breakdown of the average sample of human saliva and that it has a pH of about 7...so I am a bit of a hypocrite. Mostly, I just hate going with the politically correct mantra that saliva is cool so in a moment of self-loathing I was forced to make fun of you.
So, MojoMan, you appear to be in the same boat with Inhofe... ____________________________________________________________ A senator in a hostile climate By Dana Milbank Wednesday, October 28, 2009 It must be very lonely being the last flat-earther. Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, committed climate-change denier, found himself in just such a position Tuesday morning as the Senate environment committee, on which he is the ranking Republican, took up legislation on global warming. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was in talks with Democrats over a compromise bill -- the traitor! And as Inhofe listened, fellow Republicans on the committee -- turncoats! -- made it clear that they no longer share, if they ever did, Inhofe's view that man-made global warming is the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." "Eleven academies in industrialized countries say that climate change is real; humans have caused most of the recent warming," admitted Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me my house was about to burn down, I'd buy some fire insurance." An oil-state senator, David Vitter (R-La), said that he, too, wants to "get us beyond high-carbon fuels" and "focus on conservation, nuclear, natural gas and new technologies like electric cars." And an industrial-state senator, George Voinovich (R-Ohio), acknowledged that climate change "is a serious and complex issue that deserves our full attention." Then there was poor Inhofe. "The science is more definitive than ever? You keep saying that because you want to believe it so much," he said bitterly. He offered to furnish a list of scientists who once believed in climate change but "who are solidly on the other side right now." The science, he said, "already has shifted" against global-warming theory. "Science is not settled! Everyone knows it's not settled!" Inhofe called for more oil drilling. His aides tried to debunk the other senators' points by passing around papers titled "Rapid Response." Mid-hearing, Inhofe's former spokesman, now in the private sector, sent out an e-mail -- "Prominent Russian Scientist: 'We should fear a deep temperature drop -- not catastrophic global warming.' " The climate of the hearing itself seemed designed to burn Inhofe. Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), sponsor of the climate bill, insisted on having it in a too-small hearing room, causing the place to overheat from all the bodies. Though none of the committee Republicans are supporting her cap-and-trade plan for carbon emissions so far, Boxer made it clear that her primary grievance is with one Republican. "Since John Warner retired, I don't have a Republican partner on the committee, but I am appreciative for the productive conversations I've had with Senator Alexander, about nuclear energy, and for the wide-ranging conversations and meetings I had with Senator Voinovich," Boxer said, pointedly omitting Inhofe. Inhofe began by expressing surprise that Boxer would even use the term "global warming," asserting that "people have been running from that term ever since we went out of that natural warming cycle about nine years ago." And he turned with a fury on Graham, his fellow Republican, for an "apparent compromise will also entail a massive expansion of government bureaucracy." Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the first witness, turned up the temperature further on Inhofe. He gave a Gore-like tour of climate catastrophe: "the science is screaming at us to take action . . . pine beetles have destroyed 6.5 million acres of forestland . . . 180 Alaskan villages are losing permafrost . . . we have columns of methane rising now in the ocean." Kerry went on like this for an extraordinary 26 1/2 minutes that included the phrase, uttered with no apparent self-consciousness, "we invented wind." At various points, Kerry signaled an end with "I'll just close" or "I'll just end on this note" but continued on. This infuriated nobody as much as Inhofe, whom Kerry repeatedly singled out for a lecture. "Senator Inhofe, you just talked about the costs of doing some of this," he said. But "the cost of doing nothing," Kerry countered, "is far more expensive for your folks in Oklahoma." Inhofe, who glared back at Kerry, still seethed a few minutes later when he interrupted the chairman. "You know, I sat here for 25 minutes listening to Senator Kerry talk about me, and I didn't have a chance to respond," he complained. "I will, however." "I so appreciate it," Boxer said. Inhofe molested the majority by having committee staffers put up on the dais a series of 3-by-5-foot posters with messages such as "Congressional Budget Chief Says Climate Bill Would Cost Jobs" and "U.S. Unemployment High/Why Kill More Jobs With Cap & Trade?" But this failed to cool Inhofe's temper, and by the time his turn came to question the administration witnesses, Inhofe was so steamed that he used his entire five minutes to vent. He described the Democrats' proposal as "the largest tax increase in -- in history!" Agitated, his utterances disjointed, Inhofe went on: "Now, I also was -- was kind of -- I don't want any of the media to think just because I had to sit here and listen to our good friend Senator Kerry for 28 minutes, that I don't have responses to everything he said." Nobody doubted that Inhofe had a response. The doubt was whether the response would make any sense. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../10/27/AR2009102702845.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
