Global Warming is over.

[cale]

I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, disagreement with legislation aimed at combating energy waste is only relevant to that, the legislation. It has no bearing on the validity of the science, and to me it looks as though you've chosen your stance on science based on how it influences you negatively (in your opinion). I've come to that conclusion based on yours and other deniers constant ranting and raving on various green technologies.

[gwb72tii]

uh oh, the lamestream media have noticed so it must be true

no more GW

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/16/us-climate-slowdown-idUSBRE93F0AJ20130416

[kronus]

i like how you all completely ignored Quint's post..

[gwb72tii]

RSS
The slope is flat since January 1997 or 16 years and 1 month. (goes to January) RSS is 193/204 or 94.6% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.
For RSS the warming is not significant for over 23 years.

UAH
The slope is flat since July 2008 or 4 years, 7 months. (goes to January)
For UAH, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

Hadcrut4
The slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 3 months. (goes to January.)
For Hadcrut4, the warming is not significant for over 18 years.

Hadcrut3
The slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months (goes to January)
For Hadcrut3, the warming is not significant for over 19 years.

Hadsst2
The slope is flat since March 1997 or 15 years, 11 months. (goes to January)

GISS
The slope is flat since May 2001 or 11 years, 9 months. (goes to January)
For GISS, the warming is not significant for over 17 years.

this is NOT discrediting the data because it comes from publicly funded orgs, it is presenting said data as it has been collected

that is why Q5's post was not replied to

[rwh11385]

TtWH is awesome.
My point still can't get through some of you.

Just ONE example:
- Technology gave us LEDs and LED lightbulbs
- Any dumbass can calculate the possible savings, not only in consumed energy, but also the longetivity and savings vs. buying many inc. bulbs
- less energy consuption = environmentally freindly, which is a bonus
^^^ that is great and I have NOTHING against this

BUT I don't need a goverment regulation to ban inc. bulb manufacturing and FORCE me to buy LED bulbs, although the basic idea is correct. The sad thing is that currently available AGW rhetoric is used to back these regulations and screw with the market (people stock pile inc. bulbs and LED bulb prices stay high).

They should TEACH people the benefits, not force them into doing things based on Gore alarmism (among others). Easy peasy. Or one would think.

You could also compare this to Bloomberg's drink regulations. It doesn't solve a problem, even if it may be backed by science.

Well, one would think that understanding science and technology would be easy - but there are cases like you in which people are completely incapable of understanding the most basic math or science. (Not understanding that instantaneous speed is not the same as average speed, or thinking that hybrids are pointless technology because you hate AGW talk)

When people allow their political status to determine their opinion about science, all integrity is lost. Such is the same with green technology - those people who are close-minded about it because of its associations with hippies or whatnot.

I don't necessarily disagree with that. However, disagreement with legislation aimed at combating energy waste is only relevant to that, the legislation. It has no bearing on the validity of the science, and to me it looks as though you've chosen your stance on science based on how it influences you negatively (in your opinion). I've come to that conclusion based on yours and other deniers constant ranting and raving on various green technologies.

Correct, arguing based on consequences or implications does not deal with the actual validity of science or the research.

[Fusion]

What you think about my political status is clearly your nutty assumption and nothing else. Although I have commented in various political threads regarding the US, the local and Euro political scene is currently more of a concern for me, even though I have zero ability to vote on anything. If you think I'm a RWNJ just based on a disbelief in AGW, than that's pretty ignorant of you.
Maybe you're unable to understand my view because things are a bit different over here and Brussels' attempts to steal every penny are much more apparent, and some congressmen aren't even ashamed of contributing to aparently fraudulant statistics regarding the EU's emissions. The fact that these kinds of things discredit even the "turn-key" science hidden somewhere deep inside is not my fault.

Just one sentance from gwb's link says it all:

The IPCC will seek to explain the current pause in a report to be released in three parts from late 2013 as the main scientific roadmap for governments in shifting from fossil fuels towards renewable energies such as solar or wind power, the panel's chairman Rajendra Pachauri said.

-----------------

A September 2008 cable from the then US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice to eight European embassies, along with the Japanese Embassy, demonstrates how much power interested governments are prepared to wield in order to ensure their political and idealogical viewpoints are satisfied when it comes to the work of this powerful body. The cable may specifically refer to the desire to prevent the election of an Iranian scientist to an influential position, but it also opens a valuable window to the general methodology used by the US government. Notice the phrase (in brackets) “please protect” with reference to IPCC Chair, Rajendra Pachauri: likely to be a reference not to his physical safety, but to his position within the organisation. Note also the phrase “assist the U.S. Delegation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its efforts to secure a positive outcome” in the opening summary; this is clear evidence that the US wants to ensure “their people” are in place within the organisation.

By far the most damning evidence of undercover machinations to secure a “positive outcome” is in the phrase “Until such a call is received, however, Missions should take no action on this issue; USDEL will be interacting directly with host-country expert delegations in Geneva, and premature contacts/demarches with host country government officials in capitals, even to preview the background of the situation, could be highly counter-productive.” In other words, the recipients of the cable must not allow anyone to know they are working to skew the outcome of the elections as it would suggest that the USA wants to influence both foreign and global climate policy.

http://enviroleaks.org/2011/02/08/wikileaks-cablegate-cable-confirms-ipcc-is-a-political-football-to-protect-us-interests/

I'll be interested to see what fraud the IPCC comes up with this time.
This is not politics based on true science, this is science based on politics, and that's very unnerving to say the least.

This is not to say I'm against renewables. But when renewables are subsidized so much, that a few can afford to make huge solar fields, while the rest have higher bills to recover the subsidies, it is more than obvious that saving the envirnoment is not the number one priority and only a whacko could argue that this is all a very scientific way to keep ocean levels stagnant.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/solar-subsidy-sinkhole-re-evaluating-germany-s-blind-faith-in-the-sun-a-809439.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/01/solar-panel-demand-subsidy-cut

[rwh11385]

What you think about my political status is clearly your nutty assumption and nothing else. Although I have commented in various political threads regarding the US, the local and Euro political scene is currently more of a concern for me, even though I have zero ability to vote on anything. If you think I'm a RWNJ just based on a disbelief in AGW, than that's pretty ignorant of you.

Uh huh. Or the persistent demonstration that you lack any understanding of science or technology and choose to focus on an attack towards Al Gore instead of actually talking about science is what makes me think you are a complete nutjob. Maybe you are just confused or upset, but that doesn't excuse ignorance - a level of which has been astounding. Especially when you criticize the technology itself because of its associations instead of on its own merits.

Maybe you're unable to understand my view because things are a bit different over here and Brussels' attempts to steal every penny are much more apparent, and some congressmen aren't even ashamed of contributing to aparently fraudulant statistics regarding the EU's emissions. The fact that these kinds of things discredit even the "turn-key" science hidden somewhere deep inside is not my fault.

Just one sentance from gwb's link says it all:

-----------------

http://enviroleaks.org/2011/02/08/wikileaks-cablegate-cable-confirms-ipcc-is-a-political-football-to-protect-us-interests/

I'll be interested to see what fraud the IPCC comes up with this time.
This is not politics based on true science, this is science based on politics, and that's very unnerving to say the least.

If you don't like it, move. Although even the Middle East is investing in renewable energy...

Again, who doesn't think that IPCC is political? GWB wanted to shock people of this, while continuing to ignore NASA or NOAA. Are those not science organizations? Or just choosing to focus elsewhere while NOT talking about science, again?

Maybe if you actually had the most basic education in science then you would understand how all this political bullshit is nothing but a distraction from research and also the need for innovation.

Oh well, I'm thankful we have ARPA-E and look forward to its future results, this report covers a lot of issues with energy technologies:

http://bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/AEIC%20Report.pdf

Ideally, all of the world's energy problems would be solved by the discovery of new technology and innovations that are then demanded and delivered to the market, but it is not always easy to make this process go through. Hopefully crowdfunding will help, as will more and more companies taking concern for sustainability and the environment.

Interesting case study on government's role in advanced diesel research:

http://americanenergyinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Case-Diesel-Engines.pdf

If you paid any attention to the early 2000s, it was tough for a lot of efficiency technologies to be implemented because gas wasn't costly enough. And the nation struggled to be forward-thinking enough to start curing our dependence on foreign oil until prices blew up.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-109hhrg26480/html/CHRG-109hhrg26480.htm

Is the problem primarily one of technology supply or demand? While
there is no question that R&D is necessary to supply new technologies
to the marketplace, some critics of the ARPA-E proposal argue that the
U.S. energy marketplace is not short of ideas or technologies, but that
the current market structure does not generate demand for new
technologies. For example, an NAS study several years ago identified
numerous existing technologies that could increase automobile fuel
mileage that were not being applied or applied for that purpose. Even
today, oil prices are generally at a level that does not induce
consumers to switch to new energy technologies. Without government
incentives, whether through taxes, regulations or other means, the
market will not create a sufficient demand for new technologies, these
critics argue. They point out that while there are societal reasons to
seek new energy technologies, those do not translate into individual
demands with oil at current prices. Under this reasoning, new
technologies funded by an ARPA-E are no more likely to find their way
into the marketplace than are existing ideas.

And as people panicked and had their spending/saving attacked by the cost of gas and transportation (which directly increases food costs and challenges the food insecure), they then after the fact wanted better fuel economy. Helping to provide for the common welfare of the nation requires investment in research of what the future will require. A lot of our past successes were military-based research and will continue to be aided in this area, particularly since the DoD is moving towards Net Zero bases and sustainable operations which won't be impacted by influences of oil-rich nations.


With a good enough supply side, with delivery of valued attributes and quality at a reasonable cost, there won't be any need for demand incentives. And we'll get to that point with many of these technologies being debated. Someday people will look back at this research and consider it an obvious move like GPS or the internet and crucial for the US's success.

[gwb72tii]

fusion, i'll bet you a dollar (euro) to a donut (bagel) that rwh can't post an intelligent response without an insult.

no, make that 10 euro to a baguet

[Fusion]

I've gotten used to it. Its like that neighbor's dog that keeps barking, which is frustrating at first, but you learn to ignore it or throw him an old shoe to chew on.
I'm not the type of person that could be bothered by a forum hamster with too much time on his hands spent boasting his ego via a keyboard.

[rwh11385]

It's quite easy to have an intelligent discussion with people who are informed and rely on facts, regardless of their political leaning or opinion on a subject matter. However, it is challenging to talk science with people who know little about it without pointing out that truth.

[einhander]

No it isn't.

Silly.

[BraveUlysses]

It's quite easy to have an intelligent discussion with people who are informed and rely on facts, regardless of their political leaning or opinion on a subject matter. However, it is challenging to talk science with people who know little about it without pointing out that truth.

Why do you have to be so insulting?

[rwh11385]

It's like the people who get offended when the doctor won't give them antibiotics for a cold.

[herbivor]

It's like the people who get offended when the doctor won't give them antibiotics for a cold.

No, it's more like when a doctor tries to treat a patient based on medical science, when the patient prefers to pray for God to treat them.

I'll stick with science. Here is a interesting recent article the deniers will ignore: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0411194843.htm

[gwb72tii]

so herbie, whos the denier now, when it is common, widely accepted, and proven from empirical scientific evidence that global warming has shown no statistical change for 15 years?

apparently CO2 does not drive global warming (oops i mean the more socially acceptical and politically correct term coined by alarmists, "climate change")