Global warming

[av8torntn]

This coming from the guy who started the line of discussion, and continues to go on and on about it.
Let's see how long you can keep this up. I'm actually kind of enjoying it now lol.

That is creative.

 

[av8torntn]

At this point with all the crying about Cato I can only assume that the radical three cannot debate any of the scientific articles that I posted links to.

@sportello I hope you can understand now why I was not interested in reposting any of those links for you. Every time I have made the effort these same three post pages of off topic drivel. This time it was crying about Cato being a conservative organization which ironically even if true would have had no bearing. I'm pretty sure none of the articles even came from Cato. If I would have know that it would have made the heads of drivelindrivelout, Mr fedex, and the other side explode I would have looked for studies published by them. I suppose this had the same result though.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

At this point with all the crying about Cato I can only assume that the radical three cannot debate any of the scientific articles that I posted links to.

@sportello I hope you can understand now why I was not interested in reposting any of those links for you. Every time I have made the effort these same three post pages of off topic drivel. This time it was crying about Cato being a conservative organization which ironically even if true would have had no bearing. I'm pretty sure none of the articles even came from Cato. If I would have know that it would have made the heads of drivelindrivelout, Mr fedex, and the other side explode I would have looked for studies published by them. I suppose this had the same result though.

Good god man, stop trying to hijack this thread, if you care so much for Cato, start your own thread about them.

 

[av8torntn]

The only thing laughable is your thought process.

CATO.. is nothing more than a right wing think tank designed to push a conservative agenda regardless of facts. Who funds CATO AV8? Oh yeah, you know, but wont admit it. Give up trying to push the Limbaugh science on everyone.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Cato_Institute


TOS.

From CATO....


Cato Fellow Patrick Michaels Runs Climate Denial PR Firm
Patrick Michaels, a former professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and an outspoken climate change denier. On its website, Michaels is listed as Cato's only speaker on climate change. (Three others are also listed in the "Energy and Environment" category -- Jerry Taylor on "gas and oil prices, energy policy, energy conservation and regulation", Peter Van Doren on "energy regulation, gas and oil prices," and Randal O'Toole on broader environmental policies.)[36]

Pat Michaels represented the Cato Institute as a reviewer on Working Group III of the fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[37]

Michaels is the Editor of the World Climate Report, a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm" he founded and runs.[38] Michaels' biographical note on the Cato Institute website does not mention his role with New Hope Environmental Services.[39]

In an affidavit in a Vermont court case, Michaels described the "mission" of the firm as being to "publicize findings on climate change and scientific and social perspectives that may not otherwise appear in the popular literature or media. This entails both response research and public commentary."[40] In effect, New Hope Environmental Services is a PR firm. Michaels' firm does not disclose who its clients are,[41] but in 2006 a leaked memo revealed that Michaels' firm had been paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA), to counter concern about global warming.[42] An affidavit by Michaels also stated that "public disclosure of a company's funding of New Hope and its employees has already caused considerable financial loss to New Hope. For example, in 2006 Tri-State Generation & Transmission Association, Inc., an electric utility, had requested that its support of $50,000 to New Hope be held confidential. After this support was inadvertently made public by another New Hope client, Tri-State informed me that it would no longer support New Hope because of adverse publicity."[40]

On a 2007 academic CV, Michaels disclosed that prior to creating his firm, he had received funding from the Edison Electric Institute -- an electric utility trade group -- and the Western Fuels Association -- an entity that provides coal and transportation services to electric utilities. He has also been a frequent speaker at events organized by leading coal and energy companies as well as coal and other industry lobby groups.[43]

In 2009, the Center for Media and Democracy's PRWatch noted that, "in its returns, Cato reports that since April 2006 it has paid $242,900 for the 'environmental policy' services of Michaels' firm. (In preceding years, New Hope Environmental Services was not listed amongst the five highest paid independent contractors supplying professional services to Cato.) In response to an email inquiry, Michaels stated that the Cato funding 'largely supported the extensive background research for my 2009 book, Climate of Extremes, background research on climate change, mainly in the areas of ice melt and temperature histories, and background research required for invited lectures around the world.' (Climate of Extremes was published by the Cato Institute in January of ... [2009].) Asked whether the funding came from a specific company, donor or foundation, Michaels wrote via email that there wasn't 'for this or for any of my activities.' (In case the Cato Institute knew of dedicated funding sources for Michaels work that he was unaware of, I also emailed an inquiry to the think tank's media office. They did not respond.)"[44]

According to an agreement signed in 1977, there were to be four shareholders of the Cato Institute. They were Charles and David H. Koch, Ed Crane,[104] and William A. Niskanen. Niskanen died in October 2011.[105] In March 2012, a dispute broke out over the ownership of Niskanen's shares.[104][105] Charles and David Koch filed suit in Kansas, seeking to void his shareholder seat. The Kochs argued that Niskanen’s shares should first be offered to the board of the Institute, and then to the remaining shareholders.[106] Crane contended that Niskanen's share belonged to his widow, Kathryn Washburn, and that the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement."[57]

Are you just incapable of following the conversation? Or are you trying to deflect and derail by calling me bitter and leftist, of which I am neither.

You dismiss the idea that David Koch, a former libertarian and current republican, is a "shill" for the GOP. I think Ed Crane, one of the founders of the organization you're defending, has more knowledge of the direction the Kochs have taken Cato than you do:
"the move by the Kochs was an attempt to turn Cato into "some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.... It's detrimental to Cato, it's detrimental to Koch Industries, it's detrimental to the libertarian movement."

Exactly. The one remaining libertarian founder squared off with the republican Koch brothers, and lost.
It goes back to my original point which we discussed here:





I'm not whining about Cato. You have presented no positions for me to address.
What I find funny is republicans like you who think they're libertarian.

Sometimes when people are backed into a corner, they say what they really mean.
I think that's exactly what Crane did during the legal battle when he said the Kochs were trying to use Cato as an auxiliary for the GOP.
He can back away from those comments after the fact if he wants to, but he can't take back what he said.

You are so stubborn.
If you want to use his own words, here you go, educate yourself:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2...onaire_oil_guys_cato_s_president_speaks_.html

You were talking about CATO before I joined the discussion, then you want to tell me I'm hi-jacking the thread?
Get over yourself.

You guys went completely off the reservation with your Cato drama.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

You guys went completely off the reservation with your Cato drama.

And you continue to go on about CATO!
Lulz....

 

[av8torntn]

And you continue to go on about CATO!
Lulz....

Hmmm

Who's going on?

You seem completely unhinged.

 

[Sportello]

@av8totntn, your last comment to me was pretty hostile, I don't understand why. I have been busy this weekend and will respond in detail when I have a chance. My posts are in the queue for hours at times. so a live conversation is out of the question.

All I am trying to do is decipher what science you base your beliefs on. You have been forthcoming (finally) in that.

I have some papers that will cast some question on yours, but as you said, the science is not settled, it never really is until it is too late. At least, perhaps, we can discuss the topic rationally, and maybe both learn something.

 

[av8torntn]

I have some papers that will cast some question on yours, but as you said, the science is not settled, it never really is until it is too late. At least, perhaps, we can discuss the topic rationally, and maybe both learn something.

That would support my position that it isn't a settled matter so that's good.

 

[Sportello]

That would support my position that it isn't a settled matter so that's good.

Science is never settled until the experiments show it to be.

I'll be back later.

 

[wkmac]

“Rigidly promulgating the idea that climate science is ‘settled’ (or is a ‘hoax’) demeans and chills the scientific enterprise, retarding its progress in these important matters. Uncertainty is a prime mover and motivator of science and must be faced head-on. It should not be confined to hushed sidebar conversations at academic conferences.”

Is Climate Science Settled?

 

[Sportello]

That would support my position that it isn't a settled matter so that's good.

Not so fast, buckeroo.

We are learning more every day, but every link you posted has been proven problematic, rather that being supported by facts and figures. Most of your links are old and more research has been done to discredit the conclusions. I'm sure you are aware of that, so why bother linking to newer studies?

Frankly, your tone and interaction is really not worth any more of my time. I have a brick wall if I ever feel the need.

Just for yucks, Max Plank home page:

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) is an internationally renowned institute for climate research. Its mission is to understand Earth's changing climate.

Your second link:
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/6...ptions-may-be-behind-climate-change-pause.htm

Pause didn't happen. Google it.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds


The rest of your links the same, unproven conjecture.

I really don't care what you think, but appreciate you stating your reasoning. Not worth the effort for me to continue to go in circles with you.

 

[av8torntn]

The Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI-M) is an internationally renowned institute for climate research. Its mission is to understand Earth's changing climate.

Yes the Earths climate changes. It has changed dramatically throughout history.

 

[av8torntn]

Not so fast, buckeroo.

We are learning more every day, but every link you posted has been proven problematic, rather that being supported by facts and figures. Most of your links are old and more research has been done to discredit the conclusions. I'm sure you are aware of that, so why bother linking to newer studies?

.

Not so fast peewee.

I reject your position that only the lastest study is valid but I did link to the very latest published study on the subject which happens to also disagree with your unfounded position there has not been a pause in global warming. I can only assume you ignored that because it hasn't been around long enough for someone to tell you how to think on the subject.

Take your own advice and google it.

 

[av8torntn]

Pause didn't happen.

Since you seem to think Google is the final word on this subject I used google for you since you didn't seem to want to.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/

 

[MrFedEx]

Yes the Earths climate changes. It has changed dramatically throughout history.

But not in the current manner. That alone is proof that man has altered it significantly. The Industrial Revolution coincides perfectly with ice-core sampling data, and as industrialization and fossil fuel use has increased, so has global warming. If the Bible said it, you'd believe it, but scientific data gathered by researchers who have decades of specific education and experience? Nah, they're politically motivated hacks.

 

[av8torntn]

But not in the current manner. That alone is proof that man has altered it significantly. .

Uhhhhh. No.

 

[The Other Side]

Yes the Earths climate changes. It has changed dramatically throughout history.

Thank you Captain Obvious!



TOS.

 

[Sportello]

Since you seem to think Google is the final word on this subject I used google for you since you didn't seem to want to.

http://judithcurry.com/2013/09/30/ipccs-pause-logic/

I wondered how long it would be until you pulled out Judith Curry.

You do not disappoint. Loser.

 

[av8torntn]

I wondered how long it would be until you pulled out Judith Curry.

You do not disappoint. Loser.

I know you guys can't help the name calling but it's still funny.

 

[Sportello]

Not so fast peewee.

I know you guys can't help the name calling but it's still funny.

Yes. Yes it is.