California's Climate-Change Experiment

Jan 1, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Real Clear Politics

STARTING ON JAN. 1, California will begin the nation's most ambitious experiment yet in fighting climate change, and it will do it more or less alone.

Comments (Page 3)

Showing posts 41 - 60 of90
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#41
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Peer review is sometimes nothing more than one fool claiming that another fool is right.
More like scientific science fiction called peer reviewed.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You must of missed how many peer reviewed journals say it is not.
Name one. It has to be a world renown, respected SCIENCE journal.
That stumped you, didn't it#$!
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

As for world renown science agencies, what are they renown for.
They are known for... Science! The opposite of right wing ideology -- the latter that one sees at Hartland, or Wattsup.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Right now the IPCC is renown for it's AR4 and the host of errors therein. The CRU is now renown for clmategate.
The IPCC was responsible for the compilation of the best science knowledge on global warming. Yes there were a few clerical errors.

None of these affected any of the main science regarding global warming being a strong threat.

Of course the extreme right wing press makes up the opposite, and you seem to repeat from that source repeated.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I have presented the evidence in the past while you only seem to have presented fiction.
Your "evidence" was in the form of lies from right wing sites, which I proved every time, and you ran off everytime when I gave the specifics.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
One such is the AAAS which turned out to be a lobbying group.
They are a pure science organization.
Proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Associa...

Just like the Royal Society of England that you also impugn.
And all the world renown science agencies I gave you a long list of who supported global warming.

There is not one reputable world renown science agency that rejects manmade global warming as a strong potential threat to human civilizaton.

Even the American Petroleum Institute changed their official stance to neutral.

Disagree?

CHALLENGE: Show me one that rejects global warming, as your right wing
ideological sites do.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you accept the word of teh Kock Brothers? Yet you offer the mirror image, activist groups, Sceince Academies that are nothing more than government sponsered spin and have a documented history of such.
The Koch brothers ARE your source, as the pay off your right wing anti-science websites.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the real tell is when people like yourself refer to something as "RW".
Not when it is true, sweetheart: All your “observations” are popular right wing lies. And so far almost all your sources are well known right wing sites.
Duh!

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

As for evidence, look to the past. Look back a few hundred years and examine the records. Then you will discover that this is a reoccuring political fad that will be replaced with it's counterpart in a couple of decades.
It proves, once AGAIN, you don't know the difference between your right wing political ideological sites and real science.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you still believe in AGW after all this time really is a peek into your mind..
Which right wing ideological website did you get that jewel from.

Show your hand dear.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
It proves, once AGAIN, you don't know the difference between your[tina's] right wing political ideological sites and real science.
Actually tina has claimed that AGW was disproven in 2007. Now she is talking about decades to come.

If you were to examine her past posts, she demonsrates no credibility. Even some deniers have corrected her when they could not stand her bs any more.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

And more than one corrected your BS.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Jan 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean tell Hansen.
Tell him what? I'd tell him he is a genius and a hero.
Sure his models were more crude back then than now. He built some of the earliest climate models, based on his studies at NASA of understanding why Venus was hotter than Mercury.

Wait, you ran off after I proved you wrong when you said the opposite. you don't like to admit when you're proven dead wrong, do you?

Your view would be to tell Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers they were idiots, because refinements were made to their inventions of the phone and plane today.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the sea level rise. Funny thing is you look at photos from the Civil War of forts in bays there isnt a noticable change in ocean levels. Same goes with forts that were around for the war of 1812, which was two centuries ago. If there had been such a rise in water levels then the difference between those photos and today would be very noticable. After all, you are not talking a few millimeters but a half a foot or over fifteen centimeters.
Actually, since the poles haven't melted yet, I always found it premature to act like they were when talking about sea levels.

But the poles are in the process of melting.
Gee, you ran off on the proof

I like to focus on that, because satellites can accurately measure the melting now.

ARCTIC - The ice in the Arctic is about half now about what it was 30 years ago (as measured by satellites); and most of it is “new” ice; not old ice.
And it is from a climatologist that is peer reviewed in a respected science journal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
As for the rest, yes the earth is warming and has been according to data they have reconstructed since the end of the last ice age.
It should be cooling right now, per the natural cycles.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt there were cavemen heating their caves with tons of coal. The
Gee no one is claiming that. But if you want to declare victory anyway, it’s one of the few things you have said that is accurate.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

glaciers which are the last remains of that ice age have also been in retreat since the end of that ice age with exception of the little ice age a few centuries ago.
No, we should be cooling right now based on the natural cycles. You have it backwards.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

It seems like your scientist also missed all those other interglcieral periods.
No, that's still you that's messed up.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Where the earth not only warmed up but was warmer than now. That the Cambrian period which had higher CO2 levels than now actually was a very vibrant place with a population explosion in animals.
Missed there were no people around 550 million years?

It's the effect of temperatures on agriculture (ie drought) that is one of the biggest concerns.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Jan 23, 2013
 
tina anne wrote:
I missed where those were NASA websites, dear.
And these address where Roy Spencer states he used NASA satellite data to show the earth is not really warming.
Roy Spencer did use to work at NASA – on satellite technology. That was long ago.

Here is BBC recounting how peer review of Spencers paper by NASA climatologists show he used bad data. They double checked by using weather balloon data. The NASA scientists wrote another peer review journal listing exactly how Spencer messed up either purposely or not.

The editor of the satellite journal that originally published Spencer’s paper resigned because he was embarassed for the errors.
BBC talks about it here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment...

So there is ONE NASA link that talks about Global Warming and as for the evidence at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
You ran off with a preposterous alibi that they have more than one stance.

Then you gave me reference to Spencer rebutted paper as evidence.
Do you see how ridiculous that is?????

CHALLENGE: Show me a website that is an official NASA website (with their logo that is real)
that says they don’t support global warming.

AND explain to me why the evidence shown in
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
is something you’re running away from

Doesn’t speak well for you -- Does it.
I'll answer that: To any honest person, it should be VERY revealing.

Disagree? Start answering my challenges and my actual posts without the dishonest deflections!
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Jan 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

No challenges just scientific science fiction.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>More like scientific science fiction called peer reviewed.
Well, at one time the earth being flat and that the earth was the center of the universe was considered to be peer reviewed.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Name one. It has to be a world renown, respected SCIENCE journal.
That stumped you, didn't it#$!
<quoted text>
They are known for... Science! The opposite of right wing ideology -- the latter that one sees at Hartland, or Wattsup.
<quoted text>
The IPCC was responsible for the compilation of the best science knowledge on global warming. Yes there were a few clerical errors.
None of these affected any of the main science regarding global warming being a strong threat.
Of course the extreme right wing press makes up the opposite, and you seem to repeat from that source repeated.
<quoted text>
Your "evidence" was in the form of lies from right wing sites, which I proved every time, and you ran off everytime when I gave the specifics.
<quoted text>
They are a pure science organization.
Proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Associa...
Just like the Royal Society of England that you also impugn.
And all the world renown science agencies I gave you a long list of who supported global warming.
There is not one reputable world renown science agency that rejects manmade global warming as a strong potential threat to human civilizaton.
Even the American Petroleum Institute changed their official stance to neutral.
Disagree?
CHALLENGE: Show me one that rejects global warming, as your right wing
ideological sites do.
<quoted text>
The Koch brothers ARE your source, as the pay off your right wing anti-science websites.
<quoted text>
Not when it is true, sweetheart: All your “observations” are popular right wing lies. And so far almost all your sources are well known right wing sites.
Duh!
If the IPCC was responsible for assembling the best scientific knowledge on the subject of global warming then they failed. Failed completely. It was discovered that much of the AR4 report was fiction than fact.

Also, Wikipeida can no longer be considered as a source of evidence after Connonelly cooked so many entries. Literally put words in peoples mouths that they did not say. You also claim that I am wrong because as you put it quote from "extreme right wing press" and yet you quote from sources like skepticalscience and realclimate which are nothing but extreme left wing sources and expect everyone to consider their modivation to be pure. You quote AAAS, a lobbyist organization and want everyone to believe that they have no agenda.

Also, your list was out of date. Many are jumping ship as the wave of evidence swamps the remaining.

The real evidence of what is driving you is the constent reference to Right Wing this and Right Wing that. Which is clear proof that what motivates you is not science but politics. Promoting an agenda that is politics dressed in a lab coat. Which will not make it any more scientific than if you dressed it with wings and a halo and called it divine.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs1...

http://cogprints.org/3019/

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Actually tina has claimed that AGW was disproven in 2007. Now she is talking about decades to come.
If you were to examine her past posts, she demonsrates no credibility. Even some deniers have corrected her when they could not stand her bs any more.
Actually, AGW was disproved in 2008. As for the idea of man made global warming. It is a reoccuring theme in recent history. It was also popular in the 1950's and 1880's. Just like in the 1920's and 1970's the popular thing was a man was going to cause an ice age. Some even blamed the sinking of the Titanic on it.

“dening those who deny nature. ”

Since: Jun 07

Norfolk va

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell him what? I'd tell him he is a genius and a hero.
Sure his models were more crude back then than now. He built some of the earliest climate models, based on his studies at NASA of understanding why Venus was hotter than Mercury.
Wait, you ran off after I proved you wrong when you said the opposite. you don't like to admit when you're proven dead wrong, do you?
Your view would be to tell Alexander Graham Bell and the Wright Brothers they were idiots, because refinements were made to their inventions of the phone and plane today.
<quoted text>
Actually, since the poles haven't melted yet, I always found it premature to act like they were when talking about sea levels.
But the poles are in the process of melting.
Gee, you ran off on the proof
I like to focus on that, because satellites can accurately measure the melting now.
ARCTIC - The ice in the Arctic is about half now about what it was 30 years ago (as measured by satellites); and most of it is “new” ice; not old ice.
And it is from a climatologist that is peer reviewed in a respected science journal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
<quoted text>
It should be cooling right now, per the natural cycles.
<quoted text>
Gee no one is claiming that. But if you want to declare victory anyway, it’s one of the few things you have said that is accurate.
<quoted text>
No, we should be cooling right now based on the natural cycles. You have it backwards.
<quoted text>
No, that's still you that's messed up.
<quoted text>
Missed there were no people around 550 million years?
It's the effect of temperatures on agriculture (ie drought) that is one of the biggest concerns.
A genius and a hero, funny but some called Hitler the same thing. And there is a difference between crude and plan everyday wrong which was the case with Dr Hansen's models. Some of which back in the seventies predicted that we would be in the middle of an ice age right now. The difference between the Wright Brothers and Bell is that they tested what they created and it worked. Not the first time but they got it off the ground. Even though there were the Hansens of the day claiming that it would never happen and they had run the numbers to prove it which was the models of the day.

People like you like focusing on satellites not for accuracy issues but the size of the dataset. Ground based measurements are just as if not more accurate since they are measuring at the source instead of from orbit.

As for the amount of ice, yes it is less than it was 30 years ago and only a tenth of what it was thousand years ago and only a tiny faction of what it was ten thousand years ago when it covered the majority of Canada.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at one time the earth being flat and that the earth was the center of the universe was considered to be peer reviewed.
Yes peer reviewed the elite club members that agree with each other to receive more of our tax dollars.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Jan 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Wallop10 wrote:
The ice in the Arctic is about half now about what it was 30 years ago (as measured by satellites);
Thank you.

Another measure of the Arctic sea ice loss is that the yearly Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss in September 2012 was 84% of the Arctic sea ice VOLUME maximum in March 2012.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Jan 25, 2013
 
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
If the IPCC was responsible for assembling the best scientific knowledge on the subject of global warming then they failed. Failed completely. It was discovered that much of the AR4 report was fiction than fact.[QUOTE]
What a lying right wing airhead you are.


[QUOTE who="tina anne"]<quoted text>
Also, Wikipeida can no longer be considered as a source of evidence after Connonelly cooked so many entries. Literally put words in peoples mouths that they did not say. You also claim that I am wrong because as you put it quote from "extreme right wing press" and yet you quote from sources like skepticalscience and realclimate which are nothing but extreme left wing sources and expect everyone to consider their modivation to be pure. You quote AAAS, a lobbyist organization and want everyone to believe that they have no agenda.
--Wikipedia references its sources. Sometimes I haven’t agreed with it; but unlike you in those rare cases I can show a good source why.

--RealClimate is a website run by top climatologists including NASA’s Gavin Schmidt and is top technical.

--Skeptical science, is also a top renown science website.

--AAAS is one of the top science organizations in the world, and it’s looney you characterize it as a lobbyist group. The oil companies you extol are the lobbyist groups.

You are the one always posting from pure extremist right wing ideological websites, and making crazy statements like saying Venus is not hotter than Mercury, and the mechanism is not CO2.

WhEN I prove it, you run off with your tail between your legs.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

Also, your list was out of date. Many are jumping ship as the wave of evidence swamps the remaining.
Another crazy statement with NO evidence.
Disagree? You need to provide some real evidence, dear...
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>

The real evidence of what is driving you is the constent reference to Right Wing this and Right Wing that. Which is clear proof that what motivates you is not science but politics. Promoting an agenda that is politics dressed in a lab coat. Which will not make it any more scientific than if you dressed it with wings and a halo and called it divine.]
No, you’re sources are well known right wing sites.
And you have shown NO shame when I prove you post trash from them.

My favorite I think I asked you to respond to NASA’s list of evidence here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And you responded with another looney post trying to claim there were other NASA websites that said the opposite.

I challenged you to find them for me – remember???
You’re a hoot.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Jan 25, 2013
 
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
If the IPCC was responsible for assembling the best scientific knowledge on the subject of global warming then they failed. Failed completely. It was discovered that much of the AR4 report was fiction than fact.
What a lune -- you are believing your right wing rags again.
A few clerical mistakes, did not change the main body of their work.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, Wikipeida can no longer be considered as a source of evidence after Connonelly cooked so many entries. Literally put words in peoples mouths that they did not say. You also claim that I am wrong because as you put it quote from "extreme right wing press" and yet you quote from sources like skepticalscience and realclimate which are nothing but extreme left wing sources and expect everyone to consider their modivation to be pure. You quote AAAS, a lobbyist organization and want everyone to believe that they have no agenda.
Wikipedia tightened their controls after a prank incident on an obscure person. It’s still right more than 99% of the time, unlike your right wing sources that lie all the time. I’ve proven it to you – you obviously care nothing about the truth.

RealClimate is run by climatologists, including Gavin Schmidt a top NASA climatologist. It is considered the top technical climatology website.

No surprises you demean that.

AAAS is a top science organization in the US.

But then you HATE science, is what I see.
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, your list was out of date. Many are jumping ship as the wave of evidence swamps the remaining.
If you really believed that, you’d give some real evidence – wouldn’t you.

But all you could do is give looney right wing extreme websites....
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
The real evidence of what is driving you is the constent reference to Right Wing this and Right Wing that. Which is clear proof that what motivates you is not science but politics. Promoting an agenda that is politics dressed in a lab coat. Which will not make it any more scientific than if you dressed it with wings and a halo and called it divine.
I just call a spade a spade.

You’ve FAILED over and over on the science discussions.

Last one, you didn’t even know that gravity was a force.
LOL

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Jan 25, 2013
 
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
Another measure of the Arctic sea ice loss is that the yearly Arctic sea ice VOLUME loss in September 2012 was 84% of the Arctic sea ice VOLUME maximum in March 2012.
They're hoping that was temporary, as I recall.
Let me know if that's not right.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Jan 25, 2013
 
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Actually tina has claimed that AGW was disproven in 2007. Now she is talking about decades to come.
If you were to examine her past posts, she demonsrates no credibility. Even some deniers have corrected her when they could not stand her bs any more.
Tina is one of the worst AIR HEADS, I have seen around.

My favorite is still when she insisted global warming was disproven, and I asked her to explain this then.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

She tried to argue there were other NASA websites.

She ran off when I asked her to show me where they were... and gee they had to have that NASA logo to count.

She tried to argue Spencer was a current NASA employee. She ran off when I showed her the paper she referred to in her articles had been refuted and the editor who published it resigned in disgrace when it came to a head. Even had a BBC citation on it.

She must be a MAJOR liar to keep this up.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Jan 25, 2013
 
tina anne wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, at one time the earth being flat and that the earth was the center of the universe was considered to be peer reviewed.
Ha ha. by the Catholic church you mean...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 41 - 60 of90
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

6 Users are viewing the Global Warming Forum right now

Search the Global Warming Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
NASA satellite will study climate change 6 min SpaceBlues 1
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 13 min SpaceBlues 45,472
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 2 hr ritedownthemiddle 31,793
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 8 hr litesong 1,445
Expert: We must act fast on warming (Sep '08) 20 hr SpaceBlues 26,817
Study: 40% of gas wells could leak methane in p... 22 hr SpaceBlues 1
Report: Global warming threatens future 'gingers' Thu hippy infestation 13
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••