What makes this especially ironic is I am not even a big Climate Change ‘believer’. I just look at the available layman’s tracts, the charts and numbers that I can grok and I’ve gradually come to the realization that if we don’t take action, we’ll be sucking down ME oil for the rest of my life time. And my children’s. Burning crap isn’t the way to power an advanced civilization. CO2 is only one of the things that comes out of a smokestack, and it may have real detrimental effects changing our atmospheric composition like we are doing.

But wwnjs think it is all about Al Gore giving us teh Socialism!!1!1!!!1

so now you claim to know my brother’s mind better than I do?
you know more about our relationship than we do?
you know my mom is more left leaning then he or I? (waaaaay wrong)
my bro and I talk several times a week, we email nearly every day for business, he stays with us when he comes out for biz, but you KNOW better.

Last time he stayed with us a few weeks ago, we were drinking some beers, and flipping around the idiot box for a bit, someone was on fox (whoopi?) and I paused to listen for a bit. he asked “you actually watch that crap?” “well, if there is something interesting on any channel we’ll stop and watch” his reply “fox is crap, oreilly is nuts, beck is certifiable” my reply “yeah, but occasionally they are funny”

You are a fool sir, a child in intellect and a partisan poltroon of the worst stripe.

jbc didn’t give you posting authority for good reason

A brief perusal of the available science on climate change points to human induced changes being the cause. I am all for more study. The failure to reach orbit of the OCO sat was a major blow to accurate measurement of atmospheric composition. But beginning to work together on addressing climate change is a step we must take now if we hope to avoid disaster. Fine fine, you want to believe it is sunspots? volcanoes? ANY other reason then human induced CO2 and other GHGs… whatever, great, now what is your plan? oh, you don’t have one…

You would rather compare a monkey wrench and atmospheric/climate science… one is a physical thing built to certain very much known tolerances another is a large and exceedingly complex body of knowledge about the most complex biosphere known to man. Yes, i too have some considerable respect for Freeman Dyson, but even he hedges his rhetoric and could very well be wrong.

Enough of the science is ‘in’ that it is prudent to begin to address the likely causes. I never claimed it was 100% in. But you just love to pull ‘info’ and invective out of your ass. A carbon tax would begin to deincentivize fossil fuels. Good idea. That might help us get the hell out of the middle east and clean up the atmosphere at the same time (all while powering the next wave of the industrial revolution: clean green tech). But we have to get the Indians and Chinese on board.

This is like ‘debating’ a two year old, you are just not capable of rational thought when it comes to anything partisan or political. Your mind is already made up, you seek only information that reinforces your a priori prejudices and revel in the homespun stupidity and poltroonery.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

Now of course you are misstating what we are saying as per usual, we are not saying the temperature has dropped in the last ten years we are saying it has not increased significantly in the last ten years and has fallen slightly in the last couple.

The science that is in simply isn’t good science, if 100% of the science is “in” but it wasn’t done properly it means squat. I don’t know how much of the article on Freeman Dyson you read, it was really long, but that is what he is saying, along with several other scientists I have heard on, yes, Mike Rosen.

This is why my cpk analogy is pertinent, it doesn’t matter whether we are talking global warming, process control, detective work, or trouble shooting computer problems, there is logical procedure you use that is all based on the scientific method and it simply isn’t being used here.

“I understand the words, but they make no sense in the thread.”

And your rambling post still don’t. So let me see if I understand this correctly… you are saying (by pulling numbers from your ass) that ‘the science’ on climate change is something like 80% ‘in’ but you won’t accept that and make some analogy with a known manufacturing process? Because 20% of the science isn’t ‘in’? Forgive me for pointing this out, but how much of the science is ‘in’ on gravity. We know much about how gravity affects our world, but very little about how it actually works on a particle/wave/energy level. I bet you aren’t convinced about gravity either.

But to get back to mocking your analogy: a completely known man made process is compared to the largest natural system in the known local universe (our ecosystem). That is like comparing monkey wrenches and apples. They are both things, nouns and so forth, but to comparing them is just plain nonsensical.

The earth has not been cooling in the last ten years. Stop cherry picking a few outlier data points to make a argument that doesn’t even hold its own water. Show me the data that supports your bullshit. You can’t. It’ll be some crap from foxnewts or macho mikey rosebud.

Please step aside, stfu and let the adults fix the stuff you morans have fucked up so very badly. Thanks.

The way this works in practice is you want to not only get your process inside the tolerance, you want to get the measurements in the center of the tolerance and you want the tolerance as large as possible so the grouping is concentrated in the middle third of the tolerance, any samples outside that middle third quickly drop your cpk. Any sample s outside the tolerance kill it. You can have a process that is in control and have just one rouge sample and drop the cpk to well under 1 (2,700 ppm).

Now how this relates to the topic is we have about a 40 year period (40 samples) our hypothesis is that the earth is warming, now there is a tolerance for this warming, at some point the temperature change would be ridiculous. Now it is conceivable that there could be a year or two where the temps could actually drop and still maintain a positive climb so our lower tolerance (lsl) would be a negative number our upper tolerance (usl) would not only be positive, but would be much more positive than our lsl. If the mean were 0 then our hypothesis would be that temps are not changing. Surface data shows an increase of .17 deg c per decade for the last 30 or 40 years, this would be our trend line (mean) but for the last ten years the increase of is roughly .06 deg c with a couple of those samples below 0.

Now of course we don’t have a “tolerance” for global warming but if we did and 25% or 30% of the samples were 30% of the mean with a couple at or outside the tolerance the cpk would be considerably less than 1.3, now .1 or .2 is probably an exaggeration (we generally stop at .4, not much point below that), so let’s say .8.

You know, if someone told me his process was in control when 20 to 30 percent of the product tested was at or out of tolerance I would fire them. That would be what, .1, .2 cpk?

I understand the words, but they make no sense in the thread.
the usual non sequitur…

so let us say it IS sunspots
or magic or whatever crap wwnjs think it is on any given day
your solution is: do nothing, it’s all natural, kumbaya and pass the ammo

The vast majority of ‘the science’ says human activity is the cause (CO2, other GHGs, albedo changes, blacktop, cities, deforestation etc), but no, you KNOW better. Why? Because Al Gore wants ter give ye the socialism!1!!1!1 or some such nonsense.

Look, just step aside while the sane people deal with reality and try to fix the messes you dolts have made. Please.

Tell you what, I’ll ask all pretty please with some nuance on top: can you try to make sense, just for a minute, of your post from
http://www.lies.com/wp/2009/03/24/mooney-on-will-on-warming/#comment-143659
?

liberal guilt? it is to laugh

One of the theories of why the folks in Hollywood are predominately liberal is they have this guilt for making so much money for doing so little. I think it is more left brain, right brain myself, with right brain people being more creative so they tend to be artists and at the same time less logical.

I wasn’t in the volcano discussion, haven’t looked into it. The only thing I have been reading on volcanoes lately is that there seems to be a ridge of volcanic activity from Greenland to Alaska that is more active lately and may be one the factors of ice melting in the North Pole region. I haven’t looked into it enough to know if I believe that or not.

shcb – now I have to read your mind or listen to hate radio?
bleep that

your post made no sense in relation to the previous posts (as they so often do)
then your reply is that I should listen to PRAVDA or something like that to attain enlightenment?

seriously, when wwnjs think volcanoes and forest fires are the problem (of course they are big local problems, just ask lil bobby jindal about how super stupid volcano monitoring is!)

manmade CO2 is more than 130 times volcano CO2 (and increasing)

but don’t let the facts, don’t let the science, don’t let reason or sanity or humanity get in the way of your partisan poltroonery…

What it wasn’t designed for is a species of 6 billion raping and pillaging it and spewing shit into its air and water.

Welcome oplydoleo, sorry you aren’t concerned about how human activity is affecting the Earth.

In your post, the CO2 reductions are both A) trillions of dollars and B) barely measurable in a hundred years. Both statements are provably false, but your last sentence out does your previous doozy. Are you lil bobby jindal come over to play for the day? Because when you mock ‘volcano monitoring’ and then a major volcano blows, you look even more silly than usual. Did you know that volcanoes are actually a source of global cooling? Are you aware that some scientists are studying intentionally geo-engineering volcanoes to blow up? The idea is that they can form a sort of crude brake on the run-away temperatures by dispersing hydrogen sulfides into the upper atmosphere.

Before you make comments that are, shall we say, lacking in nuance? I suggest you check wikipedia and/or snopes. Conservapedia is not a source of accurate information btw. Turn off foxnoise and rush dimbulb. Avoid AM radio entirely.

However, emissions of CO2 by human activities are currently more than 130 times greater than the quantity emitted by volcanoes, amounting to about 27 billion tonnes per year.

Let me repeat that manmade CO2 is 130 times what volcanoes cough up every year.

Forest fires? Only you can prevent forest fires. ;-)