Reply
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

Translation:  Oops, that doesn't accord with my chosen world view, so I'll pretend the facts are other than they are.  

 


Choisya wrote:

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

 

 

 


 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Try finding some  way to counter inconvenient facts other than calling them "ad hominem"  arguments.  Which, of course, is an ad hominem attack on me, but the irony of that probably escapes you. 

 

So far, you have ranted and railed against my posts, but have not provided a single fact to counter the facts I have presented.  

 

But I notice that RTA is singularly silent on suggesting that you have any obligation to counter points made, or engage in responsible dialogue instead of dismissing facts by calling them absurd or ad hominem. 

 


Choisya wrote:

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-18-2008 03:47 PM

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

 

Try this for an answer.

 

A beautiful example of a false headline which is only refuted if you look carefully at the article.

 

The headline claims that the increase in Antarctic sea ice "is an unusual side effect of global warming."  But where is the evidence for that in the article?  "The reason for this may be shifts in winds, sea currents and snowfall."  Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.)

 

"Climate modellers predicted a long time ago that the Arctic would warm fastest and the Antarctic would be stable for a long time " says the article.  But increasing ice is not stable.  (Nostradamus predicted many things, too, by the way, many of which his adherents claim have come true by selective selection of passages and events.)

 

"Another theory'..."  "That could mean..."  The answer is, we don't know.  But does the headline say that?  Nope.   There is nothing in the article that supports the theory that the increasing ice pack is a consequence of global warming.  (Hmmmm.  Could this be because over the past few years the globe has actually been cooling?  But shhhh, we aren't supposed to talk about that.)

 

If you're going to try to refute my points, at least cite things that actually refute them.  There is a benefit to intelligent and rational discussion.  There is little, if any, to relying on headlines that aren't supported by the details.


Choisya wrote:

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-18-2008 03:47 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.) 

 

I thought that your whole argument was based on 'maybe' and that was why you had not 'bought into' the global warming theories?  Or are you now subscribing entirely to the non-global warming dogma?  (I am still on the side of 'maybe but let's try to do something about it anyway'.)

 

However, I think this discussion should be ended now because your nasty asides and ad hominem arguments are increasing - perhaps a sign that you  feel you are on the losing side?

 

In any case, others here do not appear to be interested in the topic.

 

 

 

(BTW I love the combination of your 'king' icon and your 'minority of one' Ghandi quote. A sort of Divine Right of Everyman statement?)  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

 

Try this for an answer.

 

A beautiful example of a false headline which is only refuted if you look carefully at the article.

 

The headline claims that the increase in Antarctic sea ice "is an unusual side effect of global warming."  But where is the evidence for that in the article?  "The reason for this may be shifts in winds, sea currents and snowfall."  Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.)

 

"Climate modellers predicted a long time ago that the Arctic would warm fastest and the Antarctic would be stable for a long time " says the article.  But increasing ice is not stable.  (Nostradamus predicted many things, too, by the way, many of which his adherents claim have come true by selective selection of passages and events.)

 

"Another theory'..."  "That could mean..."  The answer is, we don't know.  But does the headline say that?  Nope.   There is nothing in the article that supports the theory that the increasing ice pack is a consequence of global warming.  (Hmmmm.  Could this be because over the past few years the globe has actually been cooling?  But shhhh, we aren't supposed to talk about that.)

 

If you're going to try to refute my points, at least cite things that actually refute them.  There is a benefit to intelligent and rational discussion.  There is little, if any, to relying on headlines that aren't supported by the details.


Choisya wrote:

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Or are you now subscribing entirely to the non-global warming dogma?  (I am still on the side of 'maybe but let's try to do something about it anyway'.)

 

I subscribe to the "climate changes, has always changed, will always change, that's the way the world works" "dogma," if you want to use that term for it.  

 

Just in my lifetime, the world has cooled, warmed, and cooled again.  (It's cooled since 2002).  I see no reason to believe that it will stop keeping right on doing that for the rest of my lifetime, for my children's lifetimes, and for the lifetimes of all my progeny now and forever world without end amen (except that the world will indeed end at some point, though I hope not in my or my children's lifetimes, but who really knows when the sun will go nova opr Armageddon will arrive in some other form?).  

 

I don't subscribe the "I don't know whether it's a problem or not but let's act as though it is" aporoach.   There are enough real problems in the world to concentrate on that I don't see the benefit in spending resources and limiting our capabilities to "solve" a problem that may or may not exist, particularly since there are highly reputable and indepedent scientists who say both that it is and that it isn't.  

 

Clean air, now, that IS a current problem, it directly affects the health of millions of people, and we should be paying it a lot more attention than we do.   I'm much more concerned with the dirty air that the one-a-week coal plants that China is building emit (the winds waft that pollution directly onto my island) than I am with the possible effects of the carbon dioxide that they may also send out.  If the world environmental community is going to get exercised about a problem that is real, that is NOW, that kills people, that's what they should be focusing on. But Al Gore doesn't want to make a film about the Chinese dirtying up our air, and few grants are available for scientists studying the clean air problem and how to solve it, so it doesn't and likely won't get solved in our lifetimes.  It's not "sexy." There are no endangered polar bears to make cute movies about.  There are no Chicken Little prognostications of dirt in the air burying our coastlines and making them uninhabitable.  So the real problems get largely ignored and the "sexy" maybe-problems which the funders are throwing grant money at get all the attention.  

 

And that's the way the world works. 

 


Choisya wrote:

Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.) 

 

I thought that your whole argument was based on 'maybe' and that was why you had not 'bought into' the global warming theories?  Or are you now subscribing entirely to the non-global warming dogma?  (I am still on the side of 'maybe but let's try to do something about it anyway'.)

 

However, I think this discussion should be ended now because your nasty asides and ad hominem arguments are increasing - perhaps a sign that you  feel you are on the losing side?

 

In any case, others here do not appear to be interested in the topic.

 

 

 

(BTW I love the combination of your 'king' icon and your 'minority of one' Ghandi quote. A sort of Divine Right of Everyman statement?)  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

 

Try this for an answer.

 

A beautiful example of a false headline which is only refuted if you look carefully at the article.

 

The headline claims that the increase in Antarctic sea ice "is an unusual side effect of global warming."  But where is the evidence for that in the article?  "The reason for this may be shifts in winds, sea currents and snowfall."  Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.)

 

"Climate modellers predicted a long time ago that the Arctic would warm fastest and the Antarctic would be stable for a long time " says the article.  But increasing ice is not stable.  (Nostradamus predicted many things, too, by the way, many of which his adherents claim have come true by selective selection of passages and events.)

 

"Another theory'..."  "That could mean..."  The answer is, we don't know.  But does the headline say that?  Nope.   There is nothing in the article that supports the theory that the increasing ice pack is a consequence of global warming.  (Hmmmm.  Could this be because over the past few years the globe has actually been cooling?  But shhhh, we aren't supposed to talk about that.)

 

If you're going to try to refute my points, at least cite things that actually refute them.  There is a benefit to intelligent and rational discussion.  There is little, if any, to relying on headlines that aren't supported by the details.


Choisya wrote:

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate : Air quality.

[ Edited ]

Why do you keep harping on about Al Gore as if he were the only person involved these things?  There is, in fact, a great deal being written and being done about pollution by the Chinese. Indeed they used the Olympics as one way of tackling some of their enormous problems and British scientists advised on this. Chinese air quality standards are not as tight as most UN guidelines but they are stricter than many of the US rules.  We saw a number of documentaries here around the time of the games and there are regular news reports on what is being done there and in Eastern Europe, another problem area.  I saw a documentary about Polish air pollution only last week and a film about drought in the Colorado area.   Perhaps there is not such great interest in these things in the US as there is in Europe where our outlook, due to our imperial past, is more worldly.   

 

Because the air quality in China, India or Eastern Europe is below standard is no reason for other more developed countries, especially the rich US,  to ignore the problem. 

 

I keep saying that whether or not there is climate change/global warming, there are things happening that should concern us and that we should be doing something about.  You have already admitted that you see both air and water as problem areas.  Presumably this means that you also think that we and our governments should be trying to do something about those problems.  Or are you inclined to take a fatalistic approach which sees us all going to h*** in a handcart anyway? 

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Or are you now subscribing entirely to the non-global warming dogma?  (I am still on the side

of 'maybe but let's try to do something about it anyway'.)

 

I subscribe to the "climate changes, has always changed, will always change, that's the way the world works" "dogma," if you want to use that term for it.  

 

Just in my lifetime, the world has cooled, warmed, and cooled again.  (It's cooled since 2002).  I see no reason to believe that it will stop keeping right on doing that for the rest of my lifetime, for my children's lifetimes, and for the lifetimes of all my progeny now and forever world without end amen (except that the world will indeed end at some point, though I hope not in my or my children's lifetimes, but who really knows when the sun will go nova opr Armageddon will arrive in some other form?).  

 

I don't subscribe the "I don't know whether it's a problem or not but let's act as though it is" aporoach.   There are enough real problems in the world to concentrate on that I don't see the benefit in spending resources and limiting our capabilities to "solve" a problem that may or may not exist, particularly since there are highly reputable and indepedent scientists who say both that it is and that it isn't.  

 

Clean air, now, that IS a current problem, it directly affects the health of millions of people, and we should be paying it a lot more attention than we do.   I'm much more concerned with the dirty air that the one-a-week coal plants that China is building emit (the winds waft that pollution directly onto my island) than I am with the possible effects of the carbon dioxide that they may also send out.  If the world environmental community is going to get exercised about a problem that is real, that is NOW, that kills people, that's what they should be focusing on. But Al Gore doesn't want to make a film about the Chinese dirtying up our air, and few grants are available for scientists studying the clean air problem and how to solve it, so it doesn't and likely won't get solved in our lifetimes.  It's not "sexy." There are no endangered polar bears to make cute movies about.  There are no Chicken Little prognostications of dirt in the air burying our coastlines and making them uninhabitable.  So the real problems get largely ignored and the "sexy" maybe-problems which the funders are throwing grant money at get all the attention.  

 

And that's the way the world works. 

 


Choisya wrote:

Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.) 

 

I thought that your whole argument was based on 'maybe' and that was why you had not 'bought into' the global warming theories?  Or are you now subscribing entirely to the non-global warming dogma?  (I am still on the side of 'maybe but let's try to do something about it anyway'.)

 

However, I think this discussion should be ended now because your nasty asides and ad hominem arguments are increasing - perhaps a sign that you  feel you are on the losing side?

 

In any case, others here do not appear to be interested in the topic.

 

 

 

(BTW I love the combination of your 'king' icon and your 'minority of one' Ghandi quote. A sort of Divine Right of Everyman statement?)  

 

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

 

Try this for an answer.

 

A beautiful example of a false headline which is only refuted if you look carefully at the article.

 

The headline claims that the increase in Antarctic sea ice "is an unusual side effect of global warming."  But where is the evidence for that in the article?  "The reason for this may be shifts in winds, sea currents and snowfall."  Such a convenient "may be."   Not even probably is.  Just may be.  (It may be that the increase in Antarctic ice is a result of increased activity on Barnes and Noble's Book Club website.)

 

"Climate modellers predicted a long time ago that the Arctic would warm fastest and the Antarctic would be stable for a long time " says the article.  But increasing ice is not stable.  (Nostradamus predicted many things, too, by the way, many of which his adherents claim have come true by selective selection of passages and events.)

 

"Another theory'..."  "That could mean..."  The answer is, we don't know.  But does the headline say that?  Nope.   There is nothing in the article that supports the theory that the increasing ice pack is a consequence of global warming.  (Hmmmm.  Could this be because over the past few years the globe has actually been cooling?  But shhhh, we aren't supposed to talk about that.)

 

If you're going to try to refute my points, at least cite things that actually refute them.  There is a benefit to intelligent and rational discussion.  There is little, if any, to relying on headlines that aren't supported by the details.


Choisya wrote:

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

 

 

 

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-19-2008 01:42 PM
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate : Air quality.

Why do you keep harping on about Al Gore as if he were the only person involved these things?

 

I explained that thoroughly in an earlier post.

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

Nothing to do with anyone's world view.  You know as well as I do that you could put a group of statistics together like this about any topic under the sun.  BTW what were the sources? 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

Translation:  Oops, that doesn't accord with my chosen world view, so I'll pretend the facts are other than they are.  

 


Choisya wrote:

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

 

 

 


 


 

 


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate : Air quality.

Yes, and you completely overestimated Al Gore's influence on the world's media.  Apart from when he was over here doing the chat shows to promote his book, I have seen nothing about his views/work on climate change in the European press.  He is not a scientist and only one commentator amongst many working within the UN sphere of influence.  I much prefer to look at the work carried out by reputable non-sponsored academics in this field, whether they be 'for' or 'against'.    

 


Everyman wrote:

Why do you keep harping on about Al Gore as if he were the only person involved these things?

 

I explained that thoroughly in an earlier post.

 


 

Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

[ Edited ]

You seem to misunderstand the nature of ad hominem, which is an attack upon a person not the subject.  The translation from the Latin is 'against the person'.  I have made no personal remarks about you or about your personal views.    '[Y]ou have ranted and railed against my posts' is another ad hominem attack.   It has been part of your posting technique since I joined these boards and I remember Curtis frequently objected to it, as has RTA.   It would make for a more pleasant discourse if you tried to understand the nature of this form of fallacy because you might then stop using it.   

 

Why is what you write not 'ranting and railing'* whereas what I write is?  I have provided many more scientific links than you have, all giving facts.  They may not be facts with which you agree and that is your prerogative but they have been facts nevertheless.  You may prefer to spell things out but I prefer to give links to the views of accredited scientists rather than give my own unscientific opinions.  It is a matter of personal approach to writing about a subject.  There is a saying in the North of England:  'I don't boil my cabbage twice', which means we don't like to repeat things.  So if a link/quote says what I want to say, I don't bother to repeat it and expect the link to be read instead. 

 

I do not think it is necessary to bring RTA into this conversation. 

 

    

 


Everyman wrote:

Try finding some  way to counter inconvenient facts other than calling them "ad hominem"  arguments.  Which, of course, is an ad hominem attack on me, but the irony of that probably escapes you. 

 

So far, you have ranted and railed against my posts, but have not provided a single fact to counter the facts I have presented.  

 

But I notice that RTA is singularly silent on suggesting that you have any obligation to counter points made, or engage in responsible dialogue instead of dismissing facts by calling them absurd or ad hominem. 

 


Choisya wrote:

Wonder why the major media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be? 

 

Try reading more world newspapers and/or TV.   

 

Try this for an answer.

 

Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??

 

Try using fewer ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

Everybody knows tha  the polar ice is melting, going away, disappearing.  Right?

 

Oops. No, it isn't.  

 

Hmmm.   Wonder why the majopr media all trumpet any decline in ice, but never mention increases.  Why might that be?  Could it be that it's not politically correct to question global warming??


 

 

 

Message Edited by Choisya on 10-19-2008 02:24 PM
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

LOL Kathy - excellent response!  You made the point far better than I did:smileyhappy:

 


KathyS wrote:

:smileyvery-happy:

I wonder which party dominated the congress during these times of "Dem. and Rep. Presidencies".  Seems like that would be the criteria, too.

 

Which party sleeping in the White House has not much to do with anything, as far as I can see...unless the Dem. President is driving a "gas guzzling" Ford SUV, and the Rep. President is driving an ecologically correct Japanese electric import, during those years...or.....horse and buggy?  A hay burner!  I wonder how these emissions were checked....?  Eeewww.... Don't get me started on my visuals!

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :smileytongue:

 

My guess is (and I've voted for both parties at different times in my voting history) that there might be more jobs generated and filled (Union based) during the Dem. party's reign, causing more emissions  from factories, and or on the highway?   Or there were more Democrats who smoked pipes and cigarettes, than Republicans....or.... more hot air coming from Washington DC!  Hey, it's as good an answer as anything!


Choisya wrote:

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!


Everyman wrote:

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 


 

 

 
Message Edited by KathyS on 10-18-2008 02:37 PM

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,893
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

The Climate - And ALL Debates

Choisya, and Everyman, and anyone else who reads these comments:

 

My comments, here, are just as an observer of what we all want in these issues.  I think we all want good clean air to breath; good clean water to drink; and a good and healthy planet to live on.  That's the general opinion, right?

 

How do we go about it?  Either attaining that objective, or preserving that objective, is the real issue. 

 

In bringing Al Gore to the forefront of these discussions, just reminds me of years past and present, when Ralph Nader's name comes up.  I remember my father saying he didn't like him because he stood to far to the extreme of the general public's points of views.   Nader was, and is, an extreme thinker.

 

My thoughts were along these lines:  If anyone, and I mean anyone, brings any kinds of thoughts to the public, whether they seem extreme at that time, or not, where it concerns the future of these people, and this planet, it's worth giving it some serious thought.  What would this world be without these kinds of thinking people?  Who would bring to mind these possible causes for health problems?  Who would point out the seriousness of human concerns? 

 

We always have to have activists to point us in these directions of thought,  and action, whether we like them as a person, at that time, or not.  Change only happens when people make them.  As John Stossel brought this up on 20/20 the other night.  It's not governments who make these changes, it is all of us as individuals.  This is what we overlook.  We always want someone else to do it for us.  This mentality has to change.

 

I don't speak for Al Gore, or Ralph Nader, or the feminist movements, I speak for myself: But these sight-expanders are with us,  even though we may see them as narrow minded and focused on one thing -they want what they see as a need for our governments, countries, people - and in turn, expand our views with issues  to talk about, yell about, and debate about, when no one else will address these controversial topics.  This way we all get an opportunity to think beyond the box we call our comfort zone.  You know how I feel about comfort zones!  I'm the first one to raise my hand to stay in it!

 

We all need to agree to disagree on the methods of how to achieve the end results.  But ignoring the problem is not going to make these people, or the problems we have to face and solve,  go away.  Focus, and insight, is the only means to achieve the end results of what's good for everyone.

Scribe
debbook
Posts: 1,823
Registered: ‎05-03-2008
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate - And ALL Debates

You are very right Kathy! Often messages are deemed not credible b/c of the extreme that some take it to, whether it be environmentalists or religious zealots. They don't speak for the majority but get most of the attention focused on the them. And when we don't like the messenger we ignore all of their message, though some of it may be valid. Some times people are helpful to a cause by bringing its attention to the public and sometimes people are harmful because they offend people with their extreme views that don't allow any room for other views.

Are you reading The Believers for First Look Club? That is similar to one of the themes in the book.

A room without books is like a body without a soul.~ Cicero...
"bookmagic418.blogspot.com
Distinguished Bibliophile
KathyS
Posts: 6,893
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate - And ALL Debates

Deb,

I think (my personal point of view) that it's hard to put yourself out there with an opinion that differs from the majority.  That personality definitely has to be a strong one, and people, for the most part, I think, resent very strong personalities, unless they can be persuasive enough, and articulate enough (without being abrasive and stepping on toes), to get valid points across.  It's not much different than here.  Except here, we have to write it out, which can be even more difficult, because we can't see each others faces, or hear their inflections in their voices.  Tactful dialogue, no matter the subject, is a great concern to me.  But in the end, I want to see some positive note, and results, to conversations.

 

Extreme views will always raise hackles, and it's wise to realize this.  But there are some subjects that are necessary for some people to raise.  I was also thinking about movies and documentaries, that are made which raise awareness - specifically directed towards these environments that  can cause cancer. 

 

Most of Robin Cook's books and Michael Crichton's books, create an awareness of all kinds of medical issues, within a novel format. Just two authors that come to mind at the moment.  If you have a personal investment, where loved ones and friends are affected, you always become determined, and a lot of times angry in this determination, what is called passionate causes.  A lot of time people will take exception to 'passionate causes', because it doesn't affect them directly, therefore they don't see the need for these changes, and don't recognize the long term determinant if these issues aren't addressed.

 

No, I'm not involved in the First Look Club this go round. So, I've not read The Believers. I hope it's a good discussion for you and everyone!


debbook wrote:

You are very right Kathy! Often messages are deemed not credible b/c of the extreme that some take it to, whether it be environmentalists or religious zealots. They don't speak for the majority but get most of the attention focused on the them. And when we don't like the messenger we ignore all of their message, though some of it may be valid. Some times people are helpful to a cause by bringing its attention to the public and sometimes people are harmful because they offend people with their extreme views that don't allow any room for other views.

Are you reading The Believers for First Look Club? That is similar to one of the themes in the book.


 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

You know as well as I do that you could put a group of statistics together like this about any topic under the sun.

 

Actually, I don't know that.  Why don't you prove your point by putting together a group of statistics like that about supporting the theory that Queen Elizabeth really wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.  That's certainly a topic; if you're right, you should be able to put together a group of statistics like those about that topic. 

 

 BTW what were the sources?

 

They were all from the website I gave you the link to.  If you choose not to go there, that's fine.  But you should know by now that I don't cite unsourced statistics.  I gave you the link at the beginning of the post.   You're free to go check it out.  

 


Choisya wrote:

Nothing to do with anyone's world view.  You know as well as I do that you could put a group of statistics together like this about any topic under the sun.  BTW what were the sources? 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

Translation:  Oops, that doesn't accord with my chosen world view, so I'll pretend the facts are other than they are.  

 


Choisya wrote:

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

This is the most ridiculous use of statistics I have seen in a long time and not worth a serious response!

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.

 

 

 

 


 


 

 


 


 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate

No, you're the one who doesn't understand ad hominem.   Criticizing your posts is not criticizing you personally.  It's criticizing what you say.  But claiming that such posts are part of my posting technique IS an ad hominem attack, since it attackes me personally.    

 

I have provided many more scientific links than you have, all giving facts.  

 

Actually, not true.  

 

I do not think it is necessary to bring RTA into this conversation. 

 

I agree it should not have been necessary, and wouldn't have happened if she hadn't chosen to inject herself into the conversation and attack me.   If she had stayed out of it in the first place, I wouldn't have thought of bringing her into it.   But she's the one who accused me of not responding to your points, so it seems both fair and appropriate to suggest that she should criticize you for not responding to my points.  

 

But we're getting far off the topic here.  So let's stop this now.  

 

 

 

 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate0

I was assuming that you had read Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics or something similar. He made the point that  'correlation does not imply causation'. 

 

I see no link to the statistics you gave. This was your entire post. I referred to the final two paragraphs and subsequently asked for the sources:-

 

'Everyman wrote: 

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.'

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

You know as well as I do that you could put a group of statistics together like this about any topic under the sun.

 

Actually, I don't know that.  Why don't you prove your point by putting together a group of statistics like that about supporting the theory that Queen Elizabeth really wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.  That's certainly a topic; if you're right, you should be able to put together a group of statistics like those about that topic. 

 

 BTW what were the sources?

 

They were all from the website I gave you the link to.  If you choose not to go there, that's fine.  But you should know by now that I don't cite unsourced statistics.  I gave you the link at the beginning of the post.   You're free to go check it out.  

 

 

Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate0

Ah.  Careless on my part.  My apologies. 

 

The "few more points" referred to the previous post, where I had ended by saying "I have to go for the moment but will return with more,  but in the meantime here are some specific points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to."  The few more points were from the same link I had given in the preceeding post, which I'll offer again here:

 

this site 

 

However, I see now that the connection between the two posts was not as clear as it should have been, and I should have repeated the link in the second post.

 

Now that you have the source (and the document I linked to has the internal sources for all the statistics it cites), you will be in a position to respond substantively to the points made.  

 

Sorry again for the unclarity.  


Choisya wrote:

I was assuming that you had read Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics or something similar. He made the point that  'correlation does not imply causation'. 

 

I see no link to the statistics you gave. This was your entire post. I referred to the final two paragraphs and subsequently asked for the sources:-

 

'Everyman wrote: 

A few more points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to.

 

Satellite observations of sea ice began in 1979.  In 2007, a record was set for the most Antarctic sea ice.  Brrrrr.

 

1998 was a warm year for the globe, exciting all sorts of dire predictions. But the globe has been cooling, not warming, since then.   The temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade (and the coldest in this millenium, of course.)

 

U.S. CO2 emissions have grown more, based on annual change data, during Democratic presidencies than during Republican presidencies.  The annual change was almost 4% under Truman, just oer 2% during Eisenhower, nearly 4% under Kennedy-Johnson, just over 2% during Nixon-Ford, 1.8% per year under Clinton-Gore, and just 0.2% under Bush.   Overall, since WW2 it has averaged 2.5% during years of Democratic control of the White House and 1.3 during years of Reublican control.  Who are the real environmentalists?

 

How has Koyoto worked?  Under Koyoto, worldwide emissions of CO2 increased 18.0%.  For countries that ratified the treaty, the increase was 21.1%.   For non-ratifiers, the rate of increase was 10%.  For the US, the largest non-ratifier, the increase was 6.6%.  So much for the benefits of Koyoto.'

 

 

 

 

 


Everyman wrote:

You know as well as I do that you could put a group of statistics together like this about any topic under the sun.

 

Actually, I don't know that.  Why don't you prove your point by putting together a group of statistics like that about supporting the theory that Queen Elizabeth really wrote the plays attributed to Shakespeare.  That's certainly a topic; if you're right, you should be able to put together a group of statistics like those about that topic. 

 

 BTW what were the sources?

 

They were all from the website I gave you the link to.  If you choose not to go there, that's fine.  But you should know by now that I don't cite unsourced statistics.  I gave you the link at the beginning of the post.   You're free to go check it out.  

 

 


 

 

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Distinguished Wordsmith
Everyman
Posts: 9,216
Registered: ‎10-19-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate0

I was assuming that you had read Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics or something similar. He made the point that  'correlation does not imply causation'.

 

I have not only read it, I have taught it and referred people to it numerous times on this site.  I'm glad to see that we are agreed on its quality and credibility.

 

He is, of course, completely right.   That works, of course, both ways; for one example, the correlation between temperature change and carbon dioxide levels does not imply causation.

 

That caution, though, must be tempered.   If one doubts every link between correlation and causation one doesn't get very far in life.  As one of Murphy's Laws puts it, "the race may not always be to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, but that's the way to bet."

_______________
I think, therefore I drive people nuts.
Inspired Contributor
Choisya
Posts: 10,782
Registered: ‎10-26-2006
0 Kudos

Re: The Climate Debate0

That's OK.  I still can't pick that link up but no matter because whatever the argument I find those particular statistics illustrative of Darrell's thesis vis a vis causation and correlation. I thought KathyS's response was pertinent and prefer to leave it at that.   Sorry. 

 


Everyman wrote:

Ah.  Careless on my part.  My apologies. 

 

The "few more points" referred to the previous post, where I had ended by saying "I have to go for the moment but will return with more,  but in the meantime here are some specific points for those who think points should be responded to to respond to."  The few more points were from the same link I had given in the preceeding post, which I'll offer again here:

 

this site 

 

However, I see now that the connection between the two posts was not as clear as it should have been, and I should have repeated the link in the second post.

 

Now that you have the source (and the document I linked to has the internal sources for all the statistics it cites), you will be in a position to respond substantively to the points made.  

 

Sorry again for the unclarity.