131 replies to this topic

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe, you forget one particularly significant distinction.  The CAI is not a public company that issues stock for sale.  Exxon, BP, et al do offer company stock for sale. The public doesn't invest their own $$$ in the CAI expecting an ROI.  The public does invest their $$$ in Exxon, BP, et al expecting an ROI.  I will heartily agree that fudging scientific data in any direction (up or down) is really bad. 

 

However (and here's the distinction), someone fudging the numbers to pursue a personal or political agenda is not illegal.  Despicable, but not illegal.  Investigate all you want, probably a good idea.  Strip the offenders of their status and credibility in the scientific world. File civil lawsuits if appropriate. However, someone fudging the numbers to defraud investors and protect a public company's stock price is illegal...a federal felony.  RICO was created to give DOJ a tool to pursue violators.   Read the history of big tobacco regarding this.  They spent a huge amount of resources proclaiming the benefits of smoking when they knew smoking was harmful to health.  A lot of people died while big tobacco and the gov't wrangled over the health issues. 

 

I doubt a lot of people will die (in the USA) over climate change, however.  But a lot of people will see their financial situations impacted and sometimes destroyed because of climate change.  At that point, they will be filing civil lawsuits against who they view as the creators of climate change, mostly the fossil fuel industry.  These litigious activities will exacerbate the financial strain on our society already stretched by the effects of the climate changes themselves.  Both sides are already starting to amass resources and trying to gain influence.  I read the other day that the Koch Bros plan to spend $800 million to make sure "their folks" win elections in November.  The will of the people be damned.  Thank you Citizens United. 

 

Bottom line - it's gonna be a mess.  And as I keep saying...no one's prepared.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris,  please offer a rational theory (other than burning fossil fuels) on why the CO2 levels are rising faster than they ever have in history...600 million years of history (as shown by the graphs YOU provided).  So far, your only response has been "BS".  Sorry, but your utterance of "BS" doesn't stand up well against the data (from the graphs YOU provided).

[2 Aces]

Don't worry guys...the way things are going, the country (and the world) is well on it's way to devolve into total, complete chaos and destruction well before the devastation due to alleged climate change. Can we at least ALL agree on that??

[Chris]

Chris,  please offer a rational theory (other than burning fossil fuels) on why the CO2 levels are rising faster than they ever have in history...600 million years of history (as shown by the graphs YOU provided).  So far, your only response has been "BS".  Sorry, but your utterance of "BS" doesn't stand up well against the data (from the graphs YOU provided).

Well, you should know that you can't use that graph to determine rate of change over a small period of time because it's too big, scale is too large.  The CO2 line itself on the graph is probably many hundreds to thousands or years thick.   To extrapolate any rate of change data from that  for the last few decades or even the last century is just nonsense.  You should know this of all people here, you and your "do the math".   And I don't have to offer any theory, you have to prove your AGW theory and you can't.  And you still can't explain from the graph I provided why CO2 has been 7000 ppm, 4000 ppm, 2000 ppm, 250 ppm, the average temperature has been much hotter, oceans rose, oceans fell, continents collided for the last 600 million years all while Man did not exist.  You ignore the question, you can't answer it, because if you do you look like a fool when you say Man is at fault all of the sudden, for the rise in CO2 on this planet, just in these last few hundred years when there is 600 million years of data right in front of your nose that proves you wrong.   Chris

 

[Carl G]

Chris,  I'll answer, much to your chagrin. 

 

1)  On Feb 28th, I explained the math that clearly shows CO2 concentration is increasing 1500 times faster than it ever has in history...600 million years of history.  And this calculation used the data from the graphs that YOU provided.

 

2)  The reason this is of concern - In the past (as shown on the graphs that YOU provided), it took 100,000's of years for CO2 concentrations to change by significant amounts.  In those long periods of time, the global flora and fauna had time to adapt, evolve, and fit into the new environment.  Evolution was working.

 

3)  Today, the CO2 concentrations are increasing far more quickly than the flora and fauna (includes humans this time) can adapt, evolve, and fit into the new environment.  These rapid changes will create significant problems for people, societies, and for flora and fauna.

 

4)  You claim that humans can't possibly be responsible for the rapid increase of CO2.  But then you offer no other theory or reason that would explain the rapid increase of CO2 other than it's part of "the natural cycle".  The problem with this approach is there has never been a natural cycle where the CO2 concentrations have increased at the rates they are increasing today.  The graphs that YOU provided confirms it. 

 

Finally, this will be my last attempt to explain this to you.  If you're unwilling to accept these as facts, I can only conclude that for you ideology has trumped technology.  And you'll never be convinced.

 

GoG - I've been thinking about your assertion we are not prepared for global warming and the financial impacts.  Whatever the rise in the ocean level, I think the first reaction would be to build walls and berms to hold back any water.  Infrastructure is supposed to be great for the economy, so this sounds like a plus.  If areas are flooded and become uninhabitable, the owners of those areas will have a financial loss, but they will be displaced causing further economic activity as they move to other areas and build there.  Here there is both a minus and a plus, but I believe the plus would outweigh the minus.  If anything, I would think farmers would be most impacted due to changing weather patterns.  Where certain food are grown may change, food still would be grown.

 

With regards to CO2, my understanding on the global warming claim may be flawed.  If I understand the manmade global warming claim correctly, CO2 is problematic as it serves as an insulator trapping heat in our environment causing warming.  In my mind I think of the amount of CO2 to be similar to the R-value of insulation.  As the R-value of insulation climbs so does the insulative qualities.  As CO2 climbs, so does its insulative or heat trapping qualities.  If that is true then the global temperature increase should be a function of how much CO2 exists, not of the rate of increase in CO2.  Am I missing something there?

 

Having said that, I would love to see a reduction in the use of coal and fossil fuels.  Solar and wind power are being underused in my opinion.  I would love to see offshore wind farms, but CA will never permit that.  I would love to see new homes to be much more energy efficient and most to be solar equipped.  My motivation is not global warming, but the preservation of our beautiful natural resources (mountains in the case of coal) and more breathable air (coal and fossil fuels).

[The Average Joe]

Joe, you forget one particularly significant distinction.  The CAI is not a public company that issues stock for sale. 

 

No one is forcing anyone to buy stock, BUT we have no choice in who is stealing our tax dollars. The scientists making fat bank accounts off public money are guilty of fraud if they are misrepresenting data for their own personal gain. See the story about how many millions of dollars the leader of the RICO 20 was (illegally) making off public grants and payroll. Many of the co-signators have deep financial ties to each other as well. The leader was making more than 500k (750k if I remember right) in violation of both the college and the federal govt rules on grant money. Let me rephrase that. He was illegally taking our money.

 

However (and here's the distinction), someone fudging the numbers to pursue a personal or political agenda is not illegal.  ... However, someone fudging the numbers to defraud investors and protect a public company's stock price is illegal...a federal felony. 

So is fudging the numbers to defraud the taxpayer and protect a university's grant money. I have a feeling that this is going to hurt the alarmists a lot more than big oil.

 

  I read the other day that the Koch Bros plan to spend $800 million to make sure "their folks" win elections in November.  The will of the people be damned.  Thank you Citizens United. 

 

I read the other day that the moon landing was a hoax. Source?

You are aware of course that unions contribute far more to PACs and political committees than corporations right? And the Kochs? Really? How much is Soros and his multitude of PACs funneling? Goes both ways my friend. I would love to see Citizen's United reversed, AS LONG AS unions were also excluded from contributions.

 

[Chris]

The Koch brothers are heroes and I applaud them for going against the anti capitalist, progressive cabal, the anti free speech juggernaut of the loony left....!   The left hates them because they are successful and don't need a thing from government except to be left alone to run their fabulously successful company....!   Joe, funny how the left always mentions the Koch brothers and their hate for them (and Walmart too, the Walton family) but they give that evil man George Soros a pass along with that hypocrite Tom Steyer....   I guess all hedge fund capitalists are evil unless they are a lefty, then they are ok....   Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Joe, Koch election funding plan:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...paign.html?_r=0

 

Soros plan is unknown, but so far his known contributions are around $8M.  Soros pretty much stopped funding campaign efforts in 2004 when he was unable to influence the election.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Chris,  a couple observations:

 

-  The graph you've posted numerous times is now deficient?  Are you sure?.  The rise of CO2 concentration is clearly shown in several places on the graph that YOU supplied.  None of those are similar to what's going on now.  If you think your graph is deficient, please post another graph that contains the appropriate details.  If you can't do that, then perhaps the current rapid rise is an anomaly?  Even then, it's necessary to determine the cause of the anomaly.  Standard practice for data analysis.  What's your theory for this anomaly?

 

-  If you think my answer is incorrect, then you must know the correct answer.  You need to provide it.  It's a basic principle of logic.  If you think an answer is wrong, then you HAVE TO KNOW the right answer.  Here's a simple analogy.  We have a jar of jelly beans and I tell you there are 500 jelly beans in the jar.  You say,  "That's wrong".  If you think it's wrong, then you MUST KNOW the true number of jelly beans in the jar.  Otherwise you have no basis for challenging the 500 number.  Same is true in the GW conversation.  You say my answer is wrong (or as you term it, BS).  That means you MUST KNOW the right answer.  Let's hear it.  BTW, if you come back with "BS", we'll know you're out of ammo.

 

-  So now you say I have to prove my assertions because you're unable to present an alternate theory.  First it's lazy on your part because I have to do all the work and you get to sit around and say "That's wrong".  (See the fallacy in your thinking above)  Let's just say we actually go that way where proof is supplied to you.  There are nine different standards of proof that are generally accepted.  Exactly which standard of proof will be adequate in your mind? 

[Chris]

Chris,  a couple observations:

 

-  The graph you've posted numerous times is now deficient?  Are you sure?.  The rise of CO2 concentration is clearly shown in several places on the graph that YOU supplied.  None of those are similar to what's going on now.  If you think your graph is deficient, please post another graph that contains the appropriate details.  If you can't do that, then perhaps the current rapid rise is an anomaly?  Even then, it's necessary to determine the cause of the anomaly.  Standard practice for data analysis.  What's your theory for this anomaly?

 

-  If you think my answer is incorrect, then you must know the correct answer.  You need to provide it.  It's a basic principle of logic.  If you think an answer is wrong, then you HAVE TO KNOW the right answer.  Here's a simple analogy.  We have a jar of jelly beans and I tell you there are 500 jelly beans in the jar.  You say,  "That's wrong".  If you think it's wrong, then you MUST KNOW the true number of jelly beans in the jar.  Otherwise you have no basis for challenging the 500 number.  Same is true in the GW conversation.  You say my answer is wrong (or as you term it, BS).  That means you MUST KNOW the right answer.  Let's hear it.  BTW, if you come back with "BS", we'll know you're out of ammo.

 

-  So now you say I have to prove my assertions because you're unable to present an alternate theory.  First it's lazy on your part because I have to do all the work and you get to sit around and say "That's wrong".  (See the fallacy in your thinking above)  Let's just say we actually go that way where proof is supplied to you.  There are nine different standards of proof that are generally accepted.  Exactly which standard of proof will be adequate in your mind? 

All fluff from you, more meaningless words, more distractions, tangents, and side arguments....  No real answer from you once again.  Chart is not deficient at all, you just can't get your "rate of change" argument to fit it no matter how hard you try.   Chart is over 600 million years, you want to measure only the last few decades on it and ignore the rest.  Again, answer the question:  Explain from the graph I provided why CO2 has been 7000 ppm, 4000 ppm, 2000 ppm, 250 ppm, the average temperature has been much hotter, oceans rose, oceans fell, continents collided for the last 600 million years all while Man did not exist.  Why all of the sudden now Man is responsible for this current CO2 rise according to you and your Climate Clown friends....?   Why is 400 ppm a problem now when 4000 ppm was not a problem before...?   How did it get to 4000 ppm when man did not even exist....?   Chris

[The Average Joe]

Joe, Koch election funding plan:

 

http://www.nytimes.c...paign.html?_r=0

 

Soros plan is unknown, but so far his known contributions are around $8M.  Soros pretty much stopped funding campaign efforts in 2004 when he was unable to influence the election.

The Koch brothers AND 300 OTHER DONORS will come up with the 900 million...for an"average" of 3 million per. Soros contributes far more than 8 million through his many 527 contributions. Neither one of them is the boogey man, and both contribute obscene anounts of money. HOWEVER, Soros is known to bet against a currency and take steps to devalue it. The Koch brothers have no desire to do that. Even liberal Paul Krugman says that Soros and others like him, “... not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit."

And besides, there are 48 bigger spenders on politicians than the Koch brothers (including Soros) and they are mostly unions. Who has done more damage to America and the political process?

Take a look at who is buying politicians, and how much they give to each party. Most businesses contribute equally. Unions are all dem. 

 

https://www.opensecr...g/orgs/list.php

 

 

From 2001 to 2010, the Koch brothers invested $1.5 million in other political groups, called 527 organizations, compared to Soros’ whopping $32.5 million.  According to Open Secrets, the Koch brothers have spent over $50 million in lobbying from 1998-2010. During that same time, Soros and his primary Lobbying organization, the Open Society Policy Center, spent about $13 million.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

 Chris,  at this point, even though you've proclaimed it, I seriously doubt your technical acumen.  No need to discuss further with you.

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Carl,  you are somewhat correct regarding the building of levees and dykes.  Forward thinking communities are indeed planning to build such infrastructure.  The City of San Francisco is now setting aside $$$ to build dykes around the SFO airport.  It's estimated that by 2030, a couple of the runways will experience tidal flooding 2-4 timers a month, enough to disrupt operations.  So they are thinking ahead.  Other communities in the 1st world are doing the same.  In the 3rd world, things don't look that rosy.  For the areas that want to think ahead, they probably don't have resources ($$$) to build the needed infrastructure and it will result in significant migrations that could be problematic.  And then there's a few parts of the world that aren't even thinking ahead.  The best they can hope for is swimming lessons.

 

Also,  you suggest the people who are displaced will simply build again of dry ground.  Many won't because most of their assets were tied up in the lands that became inundated.  Their assets will become worthless and they won't have $$$ to rebuild...anywhere.

 

Regarding your thoughts on CO2 - your are mostly good with your thinking about the way CO2 retains thermal energy.  There are a couple very minor details in the mechanism that you didn't get quite right, but the results of your thinking will be about the same as reality.  Good 4 U.  There isn't so much concern about the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  CO2 concentrations have fluctuated wildly in history, but at incredibly slow rates...over millions of years.  The global flora and fauna had time to adapt, evolve, and survive in this slow changing environment.  Today, the CO2 concentrations are changing at rates that are 1500 times faster than any time in the history of the planet.  CO2 concentration changes over the last 200 years historically occurred over time periods of 10 million years.  Flora, fauna, and humans will not be able to adapt to the fast changes of today without serious efforts, resources, and work.  So the concern is the rate at which CO2 concentrations are changing, not the value at any single moment.  Reacting to this problem will soak up huge amounts of resources.

 

I'm with you on protecting the environment.  Unfortunately, much of the 3rd world isn't.  Just as one example, in So America vast regions of rain forest are being torn out and converted to palm oil plantations.  Sadly, the people who are dong it don't understand the role rain forests play in global environments, and even if they did, they probably wouldn't care.  They're just trying to survive from one day to the next.  It's a serious problem. 

[Chris]

 Chris,  at this point, even though you've proclaimed it, I seriously doubt your technical acumen.  No need to discuss further with you.

Gathered up all those marbles have you...?   I think you'll be back.   And yes, this is typical of you and progressives in general when you are losing the argument.  Insult the intelligence of the other party, doubt their educational level, their "understanding" of the technical things that you understand so well, equate them with a 6th grader, call them "backwards" or a "denier", proclaim that "they just don't get it".   I've noticed your insults have increased lately regarding this subject along with the volume of your texts.....  All filler, all fluff, no meat....!     Again, answer this question rationally for me and others here so we can learn more from you:   

 

Tell me why 50 million years ago CO2 was at 1000 ppm....?  Tell me why at 100 million years ago CO2 was at 1800 ppm....?  Tell me why at 140 million years ago CO2 was at 2400 ppm....? Tell me why 400 million years ago CO2 was at about 4000 ppm....?   Everything was fine over the eons, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth, mammals too, plants were diverse and very large, insects too.   Life forms came to be, life forms vanished.  The Oceans thrived with abundant and diverse life. Since Man was not around at these times who, or what caused those high CO2 levels....?  Why for 600 million years there was another driver, another mechanism, another process for climate change but then all of the sudden, as you believe, Man took over this process and now is responsible for the warming of the Earth, for the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, all by himself, in just these last few decades...?  The burden of proof is entirely upon you.  

 

Chris

[GrumpyOldGuy]

Naw...I've just collected your marble.  Conversations with you are no longer useful.  Bye