IGX

Too bad for him few people care.

Nothing said of the fact that he compromised his academic integrity for years to appease his donors?

Suppose that I am a bit behind the times here but when I see the phrase "On his Facebook page, Mann wrote:" I don't read what follows that closely.

posted previously on the hot enough for ya thread, the source of all thing climactic

turd has no answers, so he continues his childish diversions.

Terry B. wrote:Nothing said of the fact that he compromised his academic integrity for years to appease his donors?

Are you saying there's no room for academic diversity at Berkeley? You might as well say that he finally decided to get with the program, and try to win a Nobel Prize so he can finally get a decent parking place.

dead man walking wrote:posted previously on the hot enough for ya thread, the source of all thing climactic

turd has no answers, so he continues his childish diversions.

Actually he seems to be saying that our emissions are not a significant problem-- not exactly what the climate change crowd is looking for.

You're a noxious liar Turd. The article does not even touch on whether or not it is a "significant problem" it merely points out that the global temperature has increased as much in the last 50 years as it had in the previous 200, and that the cause was almost certainly anthropogenic. Here's Muller in his own words from the NYT:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

And his conclusions:

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Bitch stop lying.

Fat Cat wrote:You're a noxious liar Turd. The article does not even touch on whether or not it is a "significant problem" it merely points out that the global temperature has increased as much in the last 50 years as it had in the previous 200, and that the cause was almost certainly anthropogenic.

Having reading comprehension problems? I quoted an opinion poll and said "Too bad for him few people care."

Fat Cat wrote: Here's Muller in his own words from the NYT:

Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

And his conclusions:

What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise. I expect the rate of warming to proceed at a steady pace, about one and a half degrees over land in the next 50 years, less if the oceans are included. But if China continues its rapid economic growth (it has averaged 10 percent per year over the last 20 years) and its vast use of coal (it typically adds one new gigawatt per month), then that same warming could take place in less than 20 years.

Bitch stop lying.

He doesn't state that US emissions are the problem, but definitely states that those of China (and likely other developing nations) are. US emissions have declined steadily -- in the Clinton years, W years, and Obama years. Slowing developing country emissions are a much more difficult problem than limiting ours (and I've never seen a serious proposal to change the behavior of these countries, other than asking them nicely to please stay poor).

You're still better at drinking koolaid than thinking critically.

Turdacious wrote:[
He doesn't state that US emissions are the problem, but definitely states that those of China (and likely other developing nations) are.

u.s. is second largest emitter, after china. our emissions are approx 3 x those of india and 10x per person.

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote:[
He doesn't state that US emissions are the problem, but definitely states that those of China (and likely other developing nations) are.

u.s. is second largest emitter, after china. our emissions are approx 3 x those of india and 10x per person.

Muller is doing trend analysis, you aren't. Why do you hate poor people?

"2 Degrees fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of 1 degree over the most recent 50 years." Thats two total degrees fahrenheit and maybe 1 and 1/2 degree increase over the next 50 or less if you average in the ocean.

It has been hotter it has been colder, what is the right temperature for our earth, and why?

And doesn't that time frame catch the middle of the Little Ice Age? If so, wouldn't that lower the baseline period's temperature and make the increase a bit more reasonable?

People always seem to worry over the wrong things. 3 degrees over 300 years?

They took all the trees, they put them in a tree museum. They charged the people a dollar and a half just to see them. They PAVED paradise, put up a PARKING LOT.

grip junky wrote:It has been hotter it has been colder, what is the right temperature for our earth, and why?

As a European, seeing the Gulf stream interrupted would be bad. For us humans and marine life. That's one example of the effects of rapid change caused by human activity. There are lots more. Rising sea levels might be viewed as problematic by those living in Bangladesh. This stuff is all well known and easy to find and understand. It's also not disputed. What stops you, as a first world emissions producer from caring enough to find this stuff out?

Just stop farting and breathing. Problem solved.

Before the little ice age the north west passage was open for a longer time through out the year. Who is to say we are not getting back to normal.

Some land that is under water was above water at one time, some land that is above water now was under water at one time. your talking about 7" to 23" in the next 100 years.
Why is what we have now right, what we had before wrong and what we will have wrong. The earth has never stayed the same people have had to move, look at Greenland and europe a few hundred years ago. Animals evolve or not.

Pollution is bad, even if you don't believe in global warming. Taxing carbon emissions (or other polution) to reflect even the lower estimates of their costs will result in a more efficient outcome than either regulation or doing nothing. That revenue should then be used to lower other taxes, most of which are inefficient ways to raise revenue.

Allegedly free-market politicians are missing the boat here. They fail to understand (or care about) the distinction between efficient taxation that works with the market and inefficient taxation that works against it. The result is that they look like lunatics and we're left with a shitty tax system.

grip junky wrote:Before the little ice age the north west passage was open for a longer time through out the year. Who is to say we are not getting back to normal.

Some land that is under water was above water at one time, some land that is above water now was under water at one time. your talking about 7" to 23" in the next 100 years.
Why is what we have now right, what we had before wrong and what we will have wrong. The earth has never stayed the same people have had to move, look at Greenland and europe a few hundred years ago. Animals evolve or not.

We're not looking at a benign, gentle change. In climactic terms we're looking at rupture, collapse of systems and a whirlwind of shit we won't be able to undo. You think rising sea levels, the death of reefs, interrupted patterns of ocean current, desertification, flash flooding etc is small beer? Man you fucky crazy balls.

Pinky wrote:Pollution is bad, even if you don't believe in global warming. Taxing carbon emissions (or other polution) to reflect even the lower estimates of their costs will result in a more efficient outcome than either regulation or doing nothing. That revenue should then be used to lower other taxes, most of which are inefficient ways to raise revenue.

Allegedly free-market politicians are missing the boat here. They fail to understand (or care about) the distinction between efficient taxation that works with the market and inefficient taxation that works against it. The result is that they look like lunatics and we're left with a shitty tax system.

While you're right, there's more to it than that. Two problems IMO:
1. Regulators, especially federal ones, have not adapted to efficient regulation and taxation (partially because they want to defend their jobs in their current form).
2. Relevant efficiency arguments do not take into account poverty alleviation (real poverty) and other concerns of developing countries.

Turdacious wrote:While you're right, there's more to it than that. Two problems IMO:
1. Regulators, especially federal ones, have not adapted to efficient regulation and taxation (partially because they want to defend their jobs in their current form).
2. Relevant efficiency arguments do not take into account poverty alleviation (real poverty) and other concerns of developing countries.

I think it's worth pointing out that any "debate" concerning regulation is always derailed by one side which has declared any regulation (albeit creating new regulation, reforming, etc.) is bad, wrong, and detrimental to the country.

You can't have a reasonable debate when one side has proclaimed that there is no such thing as any regulation that doesn't "stifle freedom", and the only correct answer when it comes to regulation is "there should be none".

Should add that that also applies to taxation, where you have the vast majority of an entire party signing pledges created by a 12-year-old regarding taxation.

When I read through a thread like this one on climate. I have started to wonder what are the people who all so worried doing in thier own lives to do thier part to help out. Or are they just waiting around for government.

I like to take phone surveys. I took one about 2 years ago, and when we were done they asked if I would take one from time to time. I have done a bunch of them in the last 8 months. Anyway I took one about 6 weeks ago that turned out to about "green issues." As it turns out just doing a lot of what I like to do makes me green and being cheap makes me very green. What I found funny is that the women said was answers turned out greener than most of the people that said green issues were very important to them.

When I read through a thread like this one on climate. I have started to wonder what are the people who all so worried doing in thier own lives to do thier part to help out. Or are they just waiting around for government.

Hardly "waiting around for government", more like, doing what they can whilst also acknowledging that the government can encourage and steer political and public discourse through various methods of intervention.

We use everything from green cleaners, natural methods for household chores, air drying, limiting electricity use, limiting car use, a gigantic organic garden, etc., etc.

But that doesn't mean we don't see where the government could help.

Testiclaw wrote:

Turdacious wrote:While you're right, there's more to it than that. Two problems IMO:
1. Regulators, especially federal ones, have not adapted to efficient regulation and taxation (partially because they want to defend their jobs in their current form).
2. Relevant efficiency arguments do not take into account poverty alleviation (real poverty) and other concerns of developing countries.

I think it's worth pointing out that any "debate" concerning regulation is always derailed by one side which has declared any regulation (albeit creating new regulation, reforming, etc.) is bad, wrong, and detrimental to the country.

You can't have a reasonable debate when one side has proclaimed that there is no such thing as any regulation that doesn't "stifle freedom", and the only correct answer when it comes to regulation is "there should be none".

That's largely just political rhetoric that has little to do with reality-- Congress makes and the President signs vague laws, bureaucrats fill in and add the important details; federal bureaucrats largely regulate themselves and act in accordance with their own best interests, not the country's.