yyz28

Very sad. Prayers and thoughts for him and his family.

I have read both of those sources and more. ...and read may sources that give doubt that arnen't Rush Limbaugh or What's up with That?. ...in fact, until I was googling for some images on long-term climate pictures like the one I posted (which I didn't get from WUWT) I wasn't even aware of the site. ...and yes, our arrival in CUSA is a great first step. If we make it to the Big XII, all climate change will end, and then entire planet will be one giant Utopia. GO MEAN GREEN!

No. My argument is with the science. That is exactly WHY I have a problem with the government action on the science. You accept as reality the premise of Man-Made global warming. I don't. As a result of our individual beliefs, we have differing opinions on government action or lack thereof. If it makes you feel better to classify folks who disagree with your conclusions as irrational, I guess that's your right, but rather close minded. This is a forum, not a thesis. I don't always have every article, book, website or forum I've read at my finger tips. ...though for this thread, I've posted images, links, etc for some things. Others, anyone can find if they want to use google. Frankly, I don't have the time or inclination to provide a bibliography in every thread I post in. ...and some things don't need a reference. Asking for a source that the major organizations on the spearhead of the Enviornmental movement are Obama/Dem backers? Really? Great Thread!!

You started your post with "who said anything about a radical policy". That is what i was responding to. ...the Government is involved and it is the level of their involvement that makes the debate over global warming/climate change so critical.

According to the constitution, only the people may empower Government. My concern is that data is manipulated and the issue overblown to drive people to further empower Government. My concern is that the desired outcome (which is now heavily invested in both from a political and credibility standpoint) is pre-set and thus the data is being worked over to ensure that result is achieved. It isn't just about regulation, but the cost of simply living and doing business. Cap and Trade would literally cause another recession and could easily cost the average family TWICE the current cost for energy. ...and it is the empowerment of the Government that has led to huge Government investment in alternative energies that are not cost-effective or as efficient such as solar, wind & bio fuels. This Government preference artificially puts other potential sources at a competitive dis-advantage. Regulation is fine. Don't dump nuclear waste in the ocean. I'm down. Don't paint cars without a paint booth. Yup, I'm down. ...but when the government starts telling people what kind of toilet to buy and what kind of light bulb to buy, I think that's a bit invasive.

...but the government IS touching the issue, and that's the point those of us on this side are trying to make. Cap and Trade and the EPA regulating by fiat despite not having legislated regulation to act upon. The Government can't be removed from the discussion. We can agree that it is smart to drive fuel efficient cars and to recycle, purchase repurposed or recycled products, but the Government MANDATES we do it, thus running the cost up on cars, energy, and regulating business beyond what is reasonable. Pushing alternatives that aren't efficient nor cost-effective, and spending government money on R&D and thus government drives the preferred solutions, not the private sector... Government injects themselves, and you can't separate them from the debate.

Can we at least agree there is a different between climate change and pollution? Dirty water is a micro problem, climate change if it IS man made is a macro problem. We have had major positive strides on combating and preventing pollution.

I don't have time for tit for tat again, but I simply disagree that only from 1800 to present is "relevant". If the history of the planet can show us that extremes in temperatures is a planetary norm, and we've seen extremes well beyond what we're seeing today, then it calls into question the idea that we're causing the current warm-up (or cool down, as the trend is starting to indicate). ...and yes, I respect lots of sources, but never take one as the gospel. I'll listen to what they all have to say and then make my decision based on my evaluation of what each one has to say. All sources, including Factcheck, politicheck, wikipedia, and snopes, have a bias. Fox News or Huffington Post. Bias is everywhere. I understand what the single investigation showed (in fact, the factcheck article on the subject has to correct itself and admit that only one organization was investigating the scandal) but I also understand what the emails said. That wasn't a part of an email taken out of context, it was the whole thing. I think the evidence against Phil Jones and the conspiracy to manipulate data is clear. Again, I don't need someone to create a summary for me and tell me what to think (Fact Check, Wikipedia, etc) I can read it myself. I've seen articles from all sides, and I think there is clearly motivation for data manipulation, and the combination of this controversy and the flaw in NOAA data collection methods calls the entire conclusion into question. You may call into question my motivation, but it really misses the point. I'm expressing why I think some may be motivated to manipulate the reality of the situation and create policy around a science that is at bet controversial and even if 100% accurate, we have no way to reverse it today, or in the foreseeable future. ...behavior modification has often been the reason behind hoisting hoaxes and half-truths on the public in the past. I simply argue this may be one of these cases. I TOTALLY respect your opinion. I simply just don't buy this. I'm not a science denier. ...I just don't agree that we have enough evidence to link our activity to global climate change. That's my opinion based on my evaluation of the facts and information I've studied over the years.

Yes, because Factcheck is always bias free. I don't need anyone's spin or "fact checking" to read the emails. Clearly Phil Jones at best improperly reported data or at worst completely faked it. The most damning email of them all was the one from MacCracken to Jones, with Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren, copied: "In any case, if the sulfate hypothesis is right, then your prediction of warming might end up being wrong. I think we have been too readily explaining the slow changes over past decade as a result of variability--that explanation is wearing thin. I would just suggest, as a backup to your prediction, that you also do some checking on the sulfate issue, just so you might have a quantified explanation in case the prediction is wrong. Otherwise, the Skeptics will be all over us--the world is really cooling, the models are no good, etc. And all this just as the US is about ready to get serious on the issue. We all, and you all in particular, need to be prepared. Best, Mike MacCracken" ...I guess the point is that we can all put links into this thread that back up our point of view. When you actually READ the e-mails and not just articles and factcheck's summary, you find some pretty bad stuff in there. The data is HARDLY consistant. The scientific conundrum for climate change alarmists, in my opinion, is how “global” temperature measurements are gathered in the first place. Many of the techniques for gathering temperature data are obtained via archaic methods virtually unchanged for decades. The fact temperature data is extrapolated via antiquated methods from disparate data points spread out across the globe, and then corrected for bias, or what is perceived as bias, and then boiled down to a single global mean average–one number, is hugely problematic from a scientific sense. The “extrapolation problem” is further exasperated by the fact temperature readings from satellites typically don’t correlate with the bias-corrected thermometer data given to us from such folks as NASA, NOAA and the IPCC’s CRU (Climate Research Unit). Policy is now driving science, instead of science driving policy! This is, in effect, political dogma, not science. The scientific “consensus” on global warming is not based in scientific evidence; it is based instead upon a “predetermined outcome” whose goal is the enactment of stifling taxes and regulations that, at their heart, kill economic productivity in the American private sector and American competitiveness in global markets. This was actually the goal of the Kyoto Protocol–stifle emerging markets and thwart American economic productivity. Think of it as a global Ponzi Scheme (ETS – European Trading System) implemented by a Cloward/Piven-like strategy of overwhelming the bureaucracies of competing global markets with crippling “green” regulations, taxes and fees. According to the “climate change” alarmists, the very building blocks of life on earth (carbon, CO2, water, etc.) are a “threat to our health and welfare.” I couldn’t think of a bigger government revenue generator than the ability for the federal government to tax and regulate the atoms and molecules that make up life itself. This has nothing to do with our “health and welfare,” but it has everything to do with total power and control over the masses.Recently Chris Horner reported that the EPA has once again reasserted they believe “greenhouse gases pose a risk to our health and welfare.” This from a pro CO2/Warming website. Do any search on Tempruature history and you'll find evidence that the planet has been considerably hotter at times in history, without our CO2 production. ...interesting, the most rapid warming since 1900 was also before 1940. So, clearly the warming during that time wasn't all about CO2, and there have been far more emissions post 1940 than pre. My evidence is history and the fact that despite emissions, the current trend is down. Yes, its the evangelical conservative who is holding up nuclear power. ROTFLMAO!

I doubt the NOAA numbers not because NOAA is a government agency, rather that there has been a great deal of press that their methods don't exactly follow any scientific basis, and that they pick and choose the data to bolster the argument they are trying to make. Let's take your core argument as the gospel for just a moment - Assuming its true, then the folks trying to make the point to the rest of us who depend on them to draw conclusions on data we haven't all been educated to understand, then the data at least should be consistent. When data is manipulated (be it NOAA or the e-mails uncovered showing that the EPA and several Universities and International groups have been manipulating the data to make things seem worse than they really are) credibility is lost. You've got to see why folks are skeptical. ...and all the good you were doing just goes out the window. Those of us who don't agree with the conclusions you have arrived at are irrational? Sad that it has to come to that... I'm certainly not berating him. I AM just pointing out that the bulk of the opposition to Nuclear power comes from the Left. ...which is accurate. ...and Yes, I DO want private solutions to this problem, but I am also aware that TODAY, you have to literally get an act of congress and a blessing from the President, via the EPA to build a reactor. These concepts aren't in conflict. If we didn't need government to get permits to build a plant, I wouldn't even list them as part of the equation. ...but that's not how the field is currently striped. I have hard of it and i oppose it. I'd rather see it being handled by the private sector, butit isn't a bailout, its an insurance program. It doesn't fund plant construction, it basically provides an insurance fund against catastrophic damage as a result of a melt down or failure. ...and it isn't a bailout, it is funded by private industry and the power companies who use power. It is only administered by the Government. It isn't funded with tax dollars. I also think you're off base regarding cost effective nature of nuclear power, which includes amortizing the cost of plant and reactor construction. According to Nolan E. Hertel, PhD, Professor of Nuclear and Radiological Engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology, who is a leading figure in the world of Nuclear Power, quote "the cost of producing nuclear-generated electricity in 2007 was 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour, compared with 2.4 cents for coal, 6.7 cents for natural gas and 10.2 cents for oil. In other words, the cost of nuclear-generated electricity was nearly one-third less than power produced at a natural gas plant. And given the sharp rise in oil and gas prices so far this year, nuclear power's advantage has widened. Instead of wasting high-priced natural gas for electricity production, it would make a lot more sense to replace the gas with additional nuclear power and clean-coal plants, while using solar, wind and other renewables to meet peak demand. Electricity customers would benefit if natural gas were to be reserved mainly for residential and industrial uses. A straightforward and serious effort by Congress to move nuclear power forward as quickly as possible would win public support. Nuclear power is too important to be allowed to stall. The fate of our nation's economic health depends on it.” ...you know, since we're all about listening to scientists in this thread. Wow... talk about mis-leading. While this administration hasn't blocked any new plants and when asked has said it feels nuclear power is safe, it hasn't been out there pushing Nuclear power as one of the alternative sources of energy. ...AND moreover, when it comes down to it, the huge environmentalist movement, which is a big power player in the Obama machine, opposes expansion of nuclear energy. A couple of speeches and allowing a pair of rectors built on an already existing power plant which has been in the works for 15 years doesn't exactly make you Pro-Nuclear. No proposed legislation on the subject, no push on congress to act. You use a study from 2006 to make a point about a solar peak which is happening now? http://stevengoddard...ar-10-16-26.gif ...and here's the data on 2010/2011 winter. The chart on this one is interesting too, only that is shows high and low peaks for decades past industrialization. Please understand my point. I agree we can have some impact on our local environment. ...but this planet has been through FAR hotter times and FAR colder times and has done so with or without us. ...and EVEN if we've put additional CO2 into the atmosphere and that somehow is causing global climate shift, the planet will continue through these natural cycles, that will be FAR MORE extreme than anything we can even pretend we can do to the earth (short of nuclear winter as a result of global nuclear war).

Who said it is occurring randomly? What a straw man. Assuming you buy that data, and I don't based on some of NOAA's history, to state that it isn't random and may have a cause is NOT the same as saying man is causing it. We KNOW we're going through the peak of the 12 year solar cycle. ...and it's interesting that they don't include the fact that the 4 months BEFORE June 2011 were some of the COLDEST on record. The logic in the cause and effect is wrong - IF (and that's a big if) it isn't random, it must be man made? Pretty big leap there if you ask me.

This is exactly the point. Most long-term weather studies show us way warmer than we are now in the past 4000 years, and without human intervention have seen MAJOR sudden drops in temps (1300 A.D is estimated to be considerably hotter than we are now, and within 100 years, they were in the midst of a minor "ice age".) Recent Highs have been in 1991 and 1998, and the trend since 98 has been a downward trend, yet CO2 production continues to be linear. Not only is correlation not equal to causation, we don't really even have correlation when you look at all the evidence. Current consensus is that the current cooling trend may well last through the 2010's, and is predicted to see us under the "57* Normal" mark for several years, with another 1998 beating peak in the 30's. Time will tell, but CO2 emissions still continue to be linear while the temp swings all over the map...

Yeah, I was in Lubbock for both the '97 and '99 win. My buds were in shock both times... Loved kickin' their asses at home.

This may be about "were you there or not", but for me, the NO Bowl win against Cincy and the two wins against Tech IN LUBBOCK (especially with friends at Texas Tech and being in their stadium watching them realize they were losing what they thought was a sure win pair of games) are probably my two favorites.

You got the jist of what I was sayin'! Love that episode... THAAAAAAAANKS!!!!!!!

I read it, and I reject it. No real reason to respond. Sorry, I've been reading on this subject for 20 years now, and I don't buy it. If the market was driving these technologies, I'd agree with you. ...but the ones with real potential, nuclear energy, hydrogen, clean coal, etc, are being stamped out and pushed aside while technologies that are far more expensive and less efficient, such as solar, bio-fuels and wind power, are being pushed because of politics, not because anyone is really trying to drive us to a new future. In fact, the environmentalist who believes Global Warming is happening and his representatives in Government (the Democrats) will fight you all the way on Nuclear energy. ...and why do you think that is? Do you think its because they believe its unsafe? ...if they are so fatally flawed on their ideas about nuclear energy, why listen to them about the climate? ...or do you think there is another deeper motivation to the Environmentalist crowd that isn't REALLY about the environment at all? I'm not stating, I'm simply asking you to think about it... There is little in here I disagree with. ...but here you are in this thread being rather rational, and in the thread next door you support a President and a party who wouldn't allow us to build a nuclear power plant if our very existence depends on it. ...however, where I'm going to guess we differ is how much involvement the government should have on the subject anyways. Funding for scientific research and decisions about where we get our energy should be coming from the free market - not government.

I only have time to address these two points... I agree we have control over our local environment, but I doubt we have the ability to impact the climate on a global level. ...and Hybrid cars are more environmentally damaging to make as a result of the battery manufacturing process, and the chemicals involved (as are electric cars) than the emissions they save. Hybrid cars are about making individuals feel like they are doing something positive and about saving gasoline. Electric cars have to get their power from somewhere - power is never free and will require us to consume resources. Like I say, the current science is so flawed and contradictory, I don't feel that we should be making public policy and attempting to modify behavior via fiat or dictate based on such flawed data. ...and when things like the manipulation of this data to make things look worse than they really are which has been uncovered now on a couple of occasions bolster this point. We don't have enough history on actual temperature measurements to know if what we're seeing now is normal or unprecedented. Since we've started keeping track, we've seen global temps both drop and go up. ...and there are both internal and external forces far more powerful than CO2 emissions from industrialization that can impact our climate.

I've read on this subject extensively, but I'm no scientist. ...what I'm saying is that I've read so much contradictory information, I'm convinced we don't really know much about how climate and weather works. ...but even our limited science at present tells me that we're nowhere near the warmest we've ever been nor the coldest. Solar activity swings in 12 year cycles, our magnetosphere experiences changes (and did before we ever showed up on this planet) and we have measured natural events that in one day does the environmental damage we've done since industrialization. I just don't see our impact, and short of literally turning off industrialization and the world economy, I don't see how we can impact it, if or at all. This is just my conclusion based on what I've studied. The doomsday-ers are virtually always wrong. My study of the subject combined with my gut and watching the political opportunism in an effort to control behavior tells me they are this time too.

LOL! Well played...

and 09, 10 & 11 were some of the coldest winters on records. Localized weather patterns do not a climate argument make. Remember in the 70's we were headed for global winters... ...and now we're warming uncontrollably. If there is anything impacting our climate it is solar patterns, and global cycles and whims of mother nature and not human activity. We see measured temp swings on Mars as we monitor it, and I'm fairly certain they aren't man made. I absolutely think we can both positively and negatively impact our local environment and as a result impact the health and wellbeing of our citizens, but I don't think we have the power to impact the global climate or temperature.

I like to see a thing or at least get some mixed reviews before I comment and pass judgement. True, False or somewhere in between, it will piss off the lovers, spur on the haters and the folks in the middle won't see it.

It certainly isn't due to a lack of funding. Despite being 27th world wide in math, we're number one in per student spending on education. The education issue we have in this country has little to do with funding or football stadiums and everything to do with a lack of focus at home on education and far too many administrative layers of fat between the taxpayer and the student.

Nice.

Damn, this stopped being a debate or discussion and started being a personal pissing contest. I can't imagine how anyone has allowed this to get so personal?

Thanks, we aim to please... Please do, but they really aren't points meant for response nor to promote one view or the other here... First, let me just point out that I didn't say it was an argument against gay marriage. I simply stated it as fact. Second, Marriage is not a right. However, many gay marriage advocates use the term RIGHT to further their cause. ...the only point I'm making is that it is a "right" that is being pulled out of thin air. THAT is what I was trying to get across. I neither agree nor disagree with the rest of your point. We're on the same page here... again, my point isn't to discuss "fairness" simply to lay the groundwork for the debate. Make sure that the starting point in terms of what is actually being discussed here starts from the same point. Obviously, what is fair, right etc is going to be shaped by individual persons's opinions. I didn't "twist" any words. First, your base statement "every heterosexual person in the country has the right to marry they love and are attracted do…" is simply incorrect. As established in point number 1, there is NO RIGHT to marry. There simply isn't. Heterosexual men are free to marry a heterosexual woman who consents to marriage, but there is also certainty that love nor attraction exist. Additionally, while you many not consider treatment equal, it is by any objective measure - we can objectify if someone is male or female, we can't objectify love, affection, commitment, etc. As such from a strictly objective and logical point of view, everyone is treated absolutely equally when it comes to marriage. …again, as I said before, we can debate the subjective, and we may all have differing OPINIONS about what is "fair" or "the way is should be", but you can't objectively call the treatment as "unequal". …with ya' so far… …agh, nice form, but a little rough on the landing… you may have to settle for the bronze. When a private citizen exercises his first amendment rights, he, as you say, is doing no harm, no foul. When an elected official goes beyond stating his disagreement with someone's stand, but rather takes the next step of threatening or using political effluence or pressure to block someone who has exercised their first amendment rights from engaging in commerce is damaging. Legally, they may not be able to block Chick-Fil-A. …but they can inform contractors who work on the Chick-Fil-A building that they won't be considered for government contracts if they do that job. They can modify tax agreements with developers to try and make it unattractive to do business with CFA. …they may not be able to block CFA through the legal process, but throwing around political weight and capital can absolutely be damaging. THAT is my objection to the Mayors getting involved. …Had they simply made statements of disagreement, then I have no problem. …but when they state their intent is to do what is within their power to keep CFA out, then they have crossed a line that I'm FAR more concerned with than I am the issue of Gay Marriage.