| Author |
Message |
    
Benm2
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 12:03 pm: | 
|
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&si d=azpDN1eEsrnY&pos=4
quote:Controlling currency levels is a form of protectionism, Gempachiro Aihara, the incoming chair of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation’s Business Advisory Council, said last week.
Quoted from the above referenced Bloomberg article.
The Chinese ARE engaging in "back door" protectionism. It may not be as obvious as a tire tax, but it is MUCH more far reaching than just tires. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 01:44 pm: |
|
Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year
Where did this come from? I can't find it in either link that you provided. It isn't even close to anything that I can find.
Hold your horses, I have other stuff to do besides arguing with you about this. Besides, you have given me 450 so-called skeptics peer-reviewed papers that I have never even heard of, and I am checking these out.
Jimidan, you already lost that argument without providing where your data came from. I was just curious because I've found a wide range of values for this estimate, but none within a hand full of zeros of your claim. That's OK though, you don't need to admit that you pulled it out of your ass.
450 peer review studies on climate change that you never heard of and you want us to believe that you are well informed.
Back to Chinese tires. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 08:09 pm: |
|
I don't believe that those studies were published in the established science journals for peer review, but we will see. I admitted that I was not an expert in this field...I was in enforcement at KYEPA. Therefore, I am not one of the scientists who are conducting the studies and publishing the papers (the real skeptics)...I just read the stuff. But neither is anyone else on here, which most do NOT admit to. Relatively speaking, I am rather well informed though as environmental science was my vocation and is now my advocation.
I have been arguing this subject on here for years, so I know how it works. I have a 'history' with many who are the primary deniers on here, so it isn't like we are starting from square one on this. I have already been called every name in the book and banned once, so this is nothing new. I can dish it out and take it...no biggie.
Also, I guess I am a glutton for punishment now days...it is not like we can talk about Buell racing anymore. I still feel like a horse has kicked me in the stomach...and now I hear that they are looking at building Harley's just 15 miles from my home. NOW THAT is enough to get anyone depressed. I may have to become a domestic terrorist...
NOOOOO, not really!
 |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 08:26 pm: |
|
I don't believe that those studies were published in the established science journals for peer review, but we will see.
Well it's easy enough to verify. Each one has a link provided. Find any that were NOT published in the claimed science journals?
I am rather well informed though as environmental science was my vocation and is now my advocation.
And yet you have claimed that there have been zero peer reviewed studies published that refute AGW. Seems that you have somehow only informed yourself on one side of the issue.
I have been arguing this subject on here for years, so I know how it works.
Ideally it would work like this... You make a statement that "Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year". I ask "Where did this come from? I can't find it in either link that you provided. It isn't even close to anything that I can find". You respond with an answer.
For some reason you can't make that work though. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 08:58 pm: |
|
Never mind the greenie religion. What about CFL light bulbs?
2 concerns, mercury pollution and that GE is going to make them in China, and shut down the old style bulb plant here. While minute amounts of mercury are only slightly harmless, Japan's experience in gross mercury pollution is nasty. Chinese pollution is massive, and the planet is a ball, after all.
Also, your thoughts on the tariff. |
M2me
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 09:13 pm: |
|
A rather timely post on Watts Up With That.
450 skeptical peer reviewed papers? My goodness, that's a lot of papers! Some were written in the early 1990s, but still. Another odd thing I noticed was that a certain Willie Soon seems to turn up a lot. Who is this Willie Soon, I wondered. Well, it only took a couple of minutes with Google to find out. Turns out Willie has done studies funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute and he's been involved with something called the Marshall Institute. What is the Marshall Institute?
From Wikpedia:
quote:More recently, the Institute has focused on disputing mainstream scientific opinion on climate change. Funded by ExxonMobil and chaired by a former official of the American Petroleum Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute has been described by the Union of Concerned Scientists as a "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians", and by Newsweek as a "central cog in the denial machine."
The American Petroleum Institute? ExxonMobil? What interest could these guys possibly have in pushing skepticism about global warming and affecting policy relating to it? Maybe they are just really interested in climate science, I don't know!  |
Sifo
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 09:31 pm: |
|
Are you questioning the peer review process? Are you actually claiming that peer review is a pretty poor gold standard of the scientific left? It seems such a short time ago that the issue was a lack of peer reviewed studies questioning AGW. Now the peer reviewed process is hopelessly tainted with oil money.
How about picking a point of AGW theory to discuss.  |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 09:46 pm: |
|
And GE pushes the global warming con. So?
How many times do you have to be lied to before you get that the people you are listening to just are not going to be truthful?
What came first, the solar induced higher temperature or the CO2 increase? Cause & effect?
So they tell you that a hotter climate with more greenhouse gases will cause evil weather, lots of storms, cats & dogs living together, etc. Right?
Storms are caused ( oversimplification here! ) by the temperature differences between the cold parts at high latitudes, and the hot parts near the equator. Global warming is said to heat up the high latitudes more than the low ones, leading to a lesser differential. Historical records indicate that less storms do in fact happen when it's warm, and more storms when it's cold. Now there IS an increase in total energy involved, but the differential is less, so less bad weather.
Hurricanes are an ocean current thing and are thrown in by the greenies, well, because they just flat out lie.
I understand how they got started being "less than truthful". No one cares if you tell them that your life expectancy will go down 2 months on the average if you don't clean up the pollution in China. OMG, OMG the babies will all die!!! gets a faster response, and more funding.
I'm certainly not getting paid by Exxon. Scr$w them the rich Pr9cks! I don't even buy their gas if I can help it.
I simply refuse to let you impose your religion on me, ( see british religious protection court decision ) & I don't care if you're Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Wiccan or greenie.
I could go on for hours, but that is not what this thread is about. Start a global warming thread & bring facts not personal attacks, and while you are at it, look up who pays the guys who tell you the sky is falling.
How about them trade issues, eh? |
M2me
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 10:32 pm: |
|
Are you questioning the peer review process?
Not at all. I am questioning where the research money comes from. AGW skeptics say all the time that we should question where research money for AGW studies come from. Well, that's exactly what I'm doing.
I have nothing against being skeptical about AGW. But I'm skeptic about AGW skeptics. The idea that AGW has been thoroughly debunked is not true. It hasn't.
What if we follow the recommendations of AGW supporters? Promote alternative energy, etc.? As far as I'm concerned, it's a win-win. In the end I don't care whether AGW is a fact or not. The era of oil is over. That is a fact. If AGW alarmists want to climb on my bandwagon I say, welcome aboard! I've got a different concern than they do, but our goal is the same. We need to develop alternative energy, we need to stop fighting wars over oil supplies, we need to become more energy efficient, etc. |
M2me
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2009 - 10:42 pm: |
|
Start a global warming thread & bring facts not personal attacks
I apologize if I offended Willie Soon by pointing out the fact that his studies have been funded by the American Petroleum Institute and ExxonMobil. That was a pretty vicious personal attack on my part. Please forgive me Willie!
(Message edited by m2me on November 17, 2009) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:45 am: |
|
Sorry, M2me, I meant someone else.
I agree with you, we need other/alternative energy. The oil will run out, and we need a replacement that we can afford real soon. Making less smoke & pollution is good too.
But that is a more complex subject than that at hand, though related. ( we do digress sometimes )
Still curious on your views on tariffs & China holding so much of our debt. etc.
( it is related since China could want oil bearing islands in a trade war/economic blackmail scenario. Or Taiwan. Also China gets oil from Iran, which it supports, etc. etc. ) |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 11:56 am: |
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/opinion/18friedm an.html?th&emc=th |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:06 pm: |
|
"Ideally it would work like this... You make a statement that "Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year". I ask "Where did this come from? I can't find it in either link that you provided. It isn't even close to anything that I can find". You respond with an answer.
For some reason you can't make that work though."
sifo, sorry about that...you have to check and look at the figures and tables...it is not in the abstract. Enjoy.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/fi g_tab/nature07080_F1.html#figure-title |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 12:46 pm: |
|
I said that I was not an expert regarding AGW, so I posed the Watt's Up site to an expert who has the site that I refer to:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
He sent me back the following email when I posed the question about these 450 peer-reviewed studies. His reply is most interesting and informative. I see no reason to continue this "debate" and further hijack this thread. How'bout them chink tires? Ain't the sumptin?
Well, I wouldn't say there's NO peer reviewed studies that refute global
warming. I debunk several on my site for starters.
But a quick perusal of that "450 papers" list shows that most of the papers
don't refute AGW at all. Many of them focus on the fact that climate has
changed in the past which skeptics seem to think proves that humans can't be
causing global warming. In fact, past climate change proves the opposite -
that climate is sensitive to energy imbalance and hence would be sensitive
to the energy imbalance caused by CO2:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-lit tle-ice-age-medieval-warm-
period.htm
A quick search indicates up to 94 are published in 'Energy & Environment'
which is not a peer review journal but are approved by the publication
editor - quite a different process to be reviewed by climate science
experts.
Many of the papers listed are being misconstrued by skeptics. Examples:
Several Antarctic papers on growing ice in regions of Antarctica which
doesn't change the fact that Antarctica is overall losing ice at an
accelerated rate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining -ice.htm
Quoting CO2 Lags Temperature papers that actually confirm the warming effect
of CO2:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperatu re.htm
Citing growing glaciers despite the fact that globally glaciers are
shrinking at an accelerated rate:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/himalayan-glaciers -growing.htm
I could go on. It's just the usual skeptic approach - quote science out of
context, only give a small piece of the puzzle without proper context or
critical analysis.
I would like to go through the list in more detail. It would be a good
teachable moment in demonstrating the wrongness of skeptic thinking. But it
would take so much time and I'm focusing on very specific subjects at the
moment with little time to spare - hopefully I'll get the opportunity to
come back to this later.
Thanks,
John |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 07:04 pm: |
|
Jimidan, Clearly you are not able to think for yourself and need to be somebodies puppet.
Your puppet master made me LOL with this one...
quote:In fact, past climate change proves the opposite -
that climate is sensitive to energy imbalance and hence would be sensitive
to the energy imbalance caused by CO2:
Past climate change prove nothing about CO2 causing warming. Actually that's not entirely true. If CO2 were the driving force in recent glacial/interglacial periods it wouldn't have cooled as rapidly as it actually did. AGWer's claim that natural phenomenon started a slight warming and CO2 provided the forcing to make the warming that we see in ice core records. The problem here is that the cooling started and happened way ahead of CO2. If the greenhouse effect were as strong as claimed the elevated CO2 levels would have prevented the cooling again. I can dig up a link to a detailed explanation of this but I don't think you can digest it.
Your expert seems to think that warming is proof of AGW. Far from it. His info on the GRACE satellite is out of date too. Further examination has shown that a good part of the gravity change was from uplift of the earths crust if I recall correctly. This was a pretty recent development. Beyond that GRACE has only been taking measurements for a very few years. Hardly enough data to look at and start claiming there is a trend.
His point on glaciers is also quite dismissive. The fact is that many glaciers around the world are growing. Many (probably most) are in retreat as they have been for long before the rise in CO2. The reality with glaciers is that too few have been studied at all to make any solid claims about the overall balance. Again not that they provide any proof that CO2 is causing the warming.
What we do have in the recent record is rising CO2 and temperatures that have been level, or in slight decline. That is undeniable fact if you are looking at any actual records. So what is the lack of warming being caused by. There has to be an explanation. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 07:15 pm: |
|
Jimidan, Clearly you are not able to think for yourself and need to be somebodies puppet.
It is a very reputable source, a$$-wipe, but certainly not the only one. This conversation has no purpose anymore. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 07:19 pm: |
|
M2me, Classic response. Don't respond to any science. Find someone to trash by association with a boogie man.
Reminds me when the one to trash was Fred Singer. AGWers always dismissed study associated with him because of the work he did with the cigarette industry defending them against second hand smoke suites.
Basically he proved that the chemicals involved in second had smoke were not the same as those inhaled by the smoker. The 2 reasons for this are that second hand smoke either comes from smoke that has been processed by the smokers lungs, or from a cigarette that is burning passively. The problem with the cigarette burning passively is that it burns at a much lower temperature and produces different chemicals. He explained the differences and demonstrated the differences with lab tests.
In a nut shell he proved that those suing the cigarette companies were using studies that didn't prove anything about second hand smoke.
I hate cigarettes. My dad died from lung cancer after a lifetime of heavy smoking. I don't like where Singers work lead, but he did solid science.
Your crying about who was involved in a study is meaningless without getting into the validity of the science. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 07:22 pm: |
|
Jimidan, I would also be interested in an answer to Aesquire's question about CFL bulbs. The government has mandated that we bring them into our homes claiming that they are perfectly safe. The we are told the must have special disposal (that I'm not clear what I'm supposed to be doing with them), and they provide a complex set of instructions on what to do if one breaks in your house. How safe is the mercury in these bulbs? |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 07:25 pm: |
|
It is a very reputable source, a$$-wipe, but certainly not the only one. This conversation has no purpose anymore.
You may have missed my points on where he fails to provide any proof that CO2 is providing warming. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 09:07 pm: |
|
Jimidan's busted!
Posted by Jimidan...
Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been increasing at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year...say what? An analogy is helpful to bring that into proper perspective, as it is kinda hard to get one's head around that number. The Earth has been storing solar energy at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts. Considering that a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
and provided this link as the source... http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7198/ab s/nature07080.html
Now we find it's a straight C&P with an added comment from his friends blog complete with the loss of formatting of the scientific notation on the Joules that I have been questioning...
Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. In more meaningful terms, the planet has been accumulating energy at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans.
The true source is...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm
They call that plagiarism.
|
M2me
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 09:18 pm: |
|
Sorry, M2me, I meant someone else.
I know. I was just being funny. I personally attacked Willie Soon! It's kind of a funny name!
I've already stated that I support the import tax on Chinese tires. If China wants to dump cheap products on our shores we have every to impose an import tax on them. All the "free trade" people have a fit over that, but I don't. No modern, capitalist economy has been built on true "free trade". Not a single one. I don't see why the US should be the exception. |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 09:44 pm: |
|
Is the debate really whether or not the Earth is warming....really? This has happened numerous times throughout history, even in the Al Gore movie he points out that the Earth has gone hot and cold multiple times in the recent past...meaning 10,000 years. The real subject is pollution. If the Democratic party is so ready to do something then why has the Democratic congress, in place for three years and a Democratic President has yet to ratify Kyoto? As far as I am concerned the debate is mental masturbation to the supposed action.
Just appointing a Czar and saying we will create "green" jobs is in essence a public hand job. Cap and trade is the new form of commodity trading best perfected by Enron and still no real legislation to ratify Kyoto or to formally draft sanctions or tariffs against polluting countries. Call each other names, call each other idiots, deny or proclaim, but show me ONE true piece of legislation that will actually slow down pollution, because the Earth is gonna warm and cool as it has before we were walking around on the planet and will long, long, long after we are gone. Sorry to bust in on your argument, just my six pence. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 09:52 pm: |
|
I agree with you about controlling pollution. I disagree with those that claim that controlling CO2 has anything to do with controlling pollution.
If you really want to fight AGW paint your roof and driveway white. That will give you more bang for the buck than anything CO2 related. |
Liquorwhere
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 10:07 pm: |
|
I agree with you about controlling pollution. I disagree with those that claim that controlling CO2 has anything to do with controlling pollution.
I see so much more pollution out there that is more of a threat, nuclear waste dumped off the coast of Africa, sewage not properly treated going into lakes and rivers, improper disposal or lack of recycling for items with enormous half life, C02 is mother's milk for most items of the green persuasion, they need it like we need 02, that is the balance, but massive defoliation of forestry in Africa for charcoal and in south america for urban sprawl as well as non adherence to harvest/mine and then reclaim properly is a serious problem. It must be dealt with as we need the trees for lack of a better term. They need us, we need them. All in it together. We MUST crack down on unethical practices of pollution of lakes, oceans, leaching of heavy metals...so much more important than whether or not the C02 levels are higher...wanna lower it, plant a tree. My 5 quid.
|
Sifo
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 10:10 pm: |
|
Sounds like we are in agreement.  |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 11:43 pm: |
|
M2me, I'm not thinking in terms of the "free trade" people. I suspect a lot of that is corporate race to the bottom of salaries. It certainly isn't "fair trade" when there is major currency manipulation, ( how much is G. Soros making on the dollar? How much is insane U.S. spending? How much is China playing the money game? I don't know. ) and govt. interference for good or ill.
I'm wondering how it's going to affect jobs, here, if at all, and if the tire tariff is really just a bargaining chip that will get traded to China in exchange for a political favor later. Obama's recent visit & Chinese reactions ( just talking trade here ) seem to have mixed reviews.
But thanks, for reiterating your opinion. I'm more than tired of the cheap asian stuff too. There are environmental concerns about exporting jobs & pollution. American workers produce more per hour, & pollute less, but obviously cost more. It may be impossible to change that in the near term. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 18, 2009 - 11:46 pm: |
|
Liquorwhere, I agree.  |
Phatkidwit1eye
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 03:04 am: |
|
We need to ban water...FAST!
As water vapor accounts for the largest percentage of Green House gas.
DEW IT 4 THA CHIL-RENS!
You know, living in one of the "Great Plains" states, and learning that my ancestors had to live in sod houses due to there being no trees around. I tell you, either they were blind as hell, or we planted a shit-ton of trees since then. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 08:24 pm: |
|
My Mother went back to "the old country" with my Aunt & Cousin to see the old homestead, in the Hammer region of Norway.
Low sod roof house, blasted heath, rock & lichen, steep slopes, very inhospitable land. Now I know why the Vikings split for Europe every spring as soon as the Fjords were clear.
Also have a picture of early family farm in Nebraska. Low sod roof house, blasted heath, rock & lichen, dead flat plain, very inhospitable land. Little spooky that.
We've planted quite a few trees there since then. Arbor Day ring a bell? |
Phatkidwit1eye
| | Posted on Friday, November 20, 2009 - 12:18 am: |
|
>>>>Arbor Day ring a bell?
It just so happens this "son of sod hut dweller" lives in a state that boasts "Home of Arbor Day".
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/breaking-new s-story-hadley-cru-has-apparently-been-hacked-hund reds-of-files-released/#more-12937
Looks like due to Global Warming, not only is the Earth cooking, but it is also cooking the books of some crooked scientists.
"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."
 |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 07:13 am: |
|
Well, that speaks to me "how many lies..?" comment. So much for that.
Still curious about CFL's, ( are they good, or evil, overall. This isn't theoretical, I bought a bunch of the darn things. I'm a conservationist, not a greenie. ) and oh, yeah, the actual thread subject. |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, November 21, 2009 - 10:07 am: |
|
One thing I know about CFL bulbs from personal experience is they don't like to be on a photo sensor switch. In our house the exterior lights is where most of our lighting expense goes. The lights are on a photocell switch for security anytime it's dark. Replace 9 candelabra bulbs with CFL bulbs at around $100 hoping for some long term savings. Some of them wouldn't even light when it was really cold. Most of them failed in just a few months.
I'll be stocking up on standard bulbs before the ban goes into place. I don't understand why the government isn't getting behind LED lighting. They are expensive right now, but they last almost forever, won't break, and don't have toxic chemicals in them. They are also much more efficient than CFL bulbs. It's par for the course for the government to push a solution that is not the best solution available. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, November 23, 2009 - 08:05 pm: |
|
Don't use CFl's in sensor equipped lights. Don't know why, but something to do with ballasts. Some don't work base up, others don't like base down. The crappy chinese ones die very fast, and GE, I believe is moving their production to China, to save money & cash in on the green fad. ( the political kickbacks are public record, GE's honcho is wired in to this admin. )
I run yellow bug bulb CFL's on the outside lights 24/7. ( just 2 next to doors. I'm in the semiboonies & it's pitch dark ) If I turn them off in winter, they die. Leave them on all the time, they die in 1-4 months. So I leave them on. Swapped 6-100w incandescent bulbs in basement for 26w cfl's. Works good if you don't need instant bright light.
Running LED's in recessed lighting, but you have to like that they are directional, not like a light bulb, and go through a few to get all the same color, even from the same package. The tech's not there yet, at the cheap consumer level. ( sams club ) $14=6 cfl's or 2 led bulbs. |
Lovemybuellman
| | Posted on Tuesday, November 24, 2009 - 11:02 am: |
|
 |
|
