Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 50,194
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#45043 Mar 26, 2014
litesong wrote:
That's why you can't figure, if the supply of 100% gasoline rises by 10 to 15 times from its low 5% availability, the price DIFFERENCE between 100% gasoline & 10% ethanol blend, will decrease from its high of $1+.
//////////
"desperate warmist" wrote:
love ethanol, it makes us burn more gasoline, and use corn, thereby denying food crops. Win for money hungry people like me. Win win.
/////////
litesong wrote:
Ethanol, used to dilute our nation's gasoline stocks by only 10%, lowers mpg by 8% to 5%, in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines. To stuff worthless ethanol in gasoline engines, also saps land that should be used for food for 500 million people. Support the Feinstein/Coburn bi-partisan bill to eliminate dilution of our nation's gasoline stocks with ethanol.

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#45044 Mar 26, 2014
Truth Facts wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah here's an idea for ya.The circus is hiring for new clowns and I recommended you.Your #1 on their list.
I'll have to admit that is one of your better thoughts, comparatively. You certainly don't have any idea of how science works.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#45045 Mar 26, 2014
Mann’s Screw Up #7.1 – Semantics

Most people hate discussing semantics. Unfortunately, it’s necessary when people try to abuse semantics to win an argument. Michael Mann’s defense of his “trick” is one of those cases.

As you’ll recall, Michael Mann’s “trick” was to append the instrumental record to his temperature reconstruction, smooth the resulting series then truncate it so it appeared to only be a reconstructed series. That’s unquestionably dishonest.

Naturally, Mann doesn’t admit such. Instead, he attempts to abuse semantics to cover it up. On page 210 of his book, he attempts to say his trick had nothing to do with hiding things:

" The full quotation from Jone’s e-mail was (emphasis added),“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Only by omitting the twenty-three words in between “trick” and “hide the decline” were change deniers able to fabricate the claim of a supposed “trick to hide the decline.” No such phrases was used in the e-mail nor in any of the stolen e-mails for that matter. Indeed,“Make’s Nature trick” and “hide the decline” had nothing to do with each other."

He says the two phrases “had nothing to do with each other,” and people can only pretend otherwise by omitting words. Let’s consider this. Here is the original quote:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

The words people omit are prepositional phrases. All they do is clarify what the trick was. This can be seen by paring down the sentence. First, we remove the phrases listing the periods which had data added. That gives us:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series… to hide the decline."

This gives us the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick”; a description of what it is,“add in the real temps to each series”; and a purpose,“to hide the decline.” We can remove the description and get:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick… to hide the decline."

In other words, anyone with basic reading skills can see Mann is just making things up when he says the two phrases had nothing to do with each other.

http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/manns...

The lack of "basic reading skills" will prevent Bozo, Oz, Spaceballs and certainly litesong from understanding this.
Jackinthebox

Havertown, PA

#45046 Mar 26, 2014
Ethanol farm it on land that could be used for food
Process the corn which could be used as feed
Waste gas to farm, process and ship it
And make major investments it developing it

Or invest invest in cleaner burning gas

Like people won't make war over corn fields

Seems legit
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#45047 Mar 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
Mann’s Screw Up #7.1 – Semantics
Most people hate discussing semantics. Unfortunately, it’s necessary when people try to abuse semantics to win an argument. Michael Mann’s defense of his “trick” is one of those cases.
As you’ll recall, Michael Mann’s “trick” was to append the instrumental record to his temperature reconstruction, smooth the resulting series then truncate it so it appeared to only be a reconstructed series. That’s unquestionably dishonest.
..
The lack of "basic reading skills" will prevent Bozo, Oz, Spaceballs and certainly litesong from understanding this.
Hey,.. I demonstrated just the other day that you, and others like you, don't understand science and mathematics to read a graph. It was no trick.

Reading skills don't make anyone knowledgeable in science.DUH.
truth facts

Sardinia, OH

#45048 Mar 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll have to admit that is one of your better thoughts, comparatively. You certainly don't have any idea of how science works.
Apparently by all that I've read neither do you.Your just another sucker that has fallen prey to the scam artist.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#45049 Mar 26, 2014
you alarmists seem to be flip flopping a lot.

i thought you all stood for lower ghg emissions.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#45050 Mar 26, 2014
alarmists stomp there feet and then complain when they get their way!!!

lol
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#45051 Mar 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Hey,.. I demonstrated just the other day that you, and others like you, don't understand science and mathematics to read a graph. It was no trick.
Reading skills don't make anyone knowledgeable in science.DUH.
You demonstrate that you're a global warming hypocrite

As as such your credibility is ZERO.

LOL

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#45052 Mar 26, 2014
truth facts wrote:
<quoted text>Apparently by all that I've read neither do you.Your just another sucker that has fallen prey to the scam artist.
So, you think science is a scam, that Fox is the real skinny. LOL

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#45053 Mar 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You demonstrate that you're a global warming hypocrite
As as such your credibility is ZERO.
LOL
Exactly!! They show their hypocrisy by demanding we lower GHG emissions, but then want to repeal laws already in place to reverse it........because it personally costs them more money!!!!

LOL
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#45054 Mar 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think science is a scam, that Fox is the real skinny. LOL
So says the troll claiming the certainty of "settled science".

LOL

Have a seat next to Spaceballs in the ZERO credibility penalty box.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#45055 Mar 26, 2014
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>
So, you think science is a scam, LOL
only your pseudoscience variety, son.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#45056 Mar 26, 2014
[QUOTE who="ratdownthemiddle ","middleofthedownwr onggully"] buy them on the open market instead of being credited the rin for splashing ethanol into their volume percentages.
BLAME THE EPA.....[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I do blame EPA. Direct subsidies for ethanol were ended in 2012. Indirect subsidies for ethanol blending equipment have just ended. As many have already said, & I reinforce, showing the very inefficient power production of ethanol in low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines(10% ethanol blends decrease mpg by 8% to 5%), MORE oil is consumed by the "ethanol in gasoline" industry, than the industry can save. With the passage of the Feinstein/Coburn bi-partisan bill to stop ethanol blending in our nation's gasoline stocks, a 10-15 times increase in 100% gasoline AND the decrease of the "ethanol in gasoline" industry, efficient 100% gasoline production will once more power our gasoline engines. The ability of gasoline engines to immediately increase efficiency AND come nearer to EPA estimates of gasoline engine, will show the hoax of "ethanol in gasoline".

All America will see the greater value of 100% gasoline compared to 10% ethanol. But with the 10-15 times(more?) greater availability of 100% gasoline, the open market will NOT have an extra $1 per gallon stuffed on 100% gasoline vs. 10% ethanol blends.

Let gasoline engines burn 100% gasoline efficiently.
Let ethanol engines burn 100% ethanol efficiently.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#45057 Mar 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
You demonstrate that you're a global warming hypocrite
As as such your credibility is ZERO.
LOL
What you say is not evidence to anybody about me or science. LOL.
Mothra

Mesa, AZ

#45058 Mar 26, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>What you say is not evidence to anybody about me or science. LOL.
*poof*

More proof there is no CRISIS.

LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#45059 Mar 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
*poof*
More proof there is no CRISIS.
LOL
POOF to you.

Your vudu effect returns to you in multiples everytime you do to me. Karma works, too!

STOP IT, hater!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#45060 Mar 26, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
you[sic] alarmists seem to be flip flopping a lot.
i[sic] thought you all stood for lower ghg emissions.
Nobody thought you have language skills.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#45061 Mar 26, 2014
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
alarmists[sic] stomp there[sic] feet and then complain when they get their way!!!
lol
There you go to my previous post.

BAWAHAHAHA

Since: Mar 09

Wichita, KS

#45062 Mar 26, 2014
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
So says the troll claiming the certainty of "settled science".
LOL
Have a seat next to Spaceballs in the ZERO credibility penalty box.
by the RW denial industry.

Science is never certain. What is certain is that you and your science illiterate friends are being led by the nose

The Earth is warming. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Burning fossil fuels increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is scientific. Dispute those findings if you can!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min smfh 1,172,027
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 min Guru 184,298
Abby 1-25 43 min PEllen 3
Amy 1-25-14 46 min PEllen 4
So what is a great Chicago book anyway? 52 min reality is a crutch 1
Illinois Cop Claims He Is Above The Law 58 min Government Is La... 1
Chicago teen testifies about simple argument qu... 2 hr MARK TRAINA 2
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 21 hr Chooch 73
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:04 am PST

NFL10:04AM
Richardson was suspended for two Colts playoff games
ESPN10:58 AM
Colts won't commit to RB Richardson for 2015
Yahoo! Sports11:49 AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
Yahoo! Sports11:50 AM
NFL: No decision yet on deflated balls
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots