Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[gatorback]

I agree Doc_K, the problem is everything that is wrong with our nation has to do with the voters.  Whether it's a group of cole miners in W. VA, the auto workers in Michigan, or the corn growers in the land of Lincoln.  These people have put their own interests ahead of the nations.  This has got to change.

What we need is a carbon-free power.

[BridgeTroll]

the problem is everything that is wrong with our nation has to do with the voters.  Whether it's a group of cole miners in W. VA, the auto workers in Michigan, or the corn growers in the land of Lincoln.  These people have put their own interests ahead of the nations.  This has got to change.

Wow... people voting according to their own interests?? To quote the late Vince Lombardi... "What the hell is going on out there!!??"

[NotNow]

Wow, I thought that I had clearly posted my objections to Kyoto in Post #243.  I'll reprint it for you:

"I believe that I stated part of my problem with the treaty in an earlier post.  Am I "uninformed" when I state that China and India are not subject to the same "non-compliance" penalties that the US is subject to under this treaty?  What country would pay the lions share of the "adaptation fund" that will be provided to "developing countries"?  And politics?  Are you kidding me?!?!?!  Have you any idea what a cesspool the UN is?  Have you any personal experience with the UN?  The United States is the target of this wealth tranfer scheme. "

Once again, I must state that I simply disagree with the idea that we should succumb to a UN oversight and fine system against US industry.  I certainly advocate the use of government power to encourage the implementation of equipment and processes that WORK.  I have mentioned solar panels and nuclear power as examples of these.  I would also heavily subsidize plug in electric vehicles and battery development and I believe that we should use modern drilling techniques to extract American crude oil where we can do it profitably.  I am familiar with what you call a "source" document,  but I am pointing out  the political flaws of a political process.  While it is true that none of us here are qualified to debate the science, those that are qualified are not in agreement IMHO.  I have never claimed to be an environmental expert, ( or a legal, religious, political, etc. expert) like some others who post here frequently.  I am simply stating my opinion and the reasons for it.  I am somewhat familiar with the UN and it's various forms.  I have experienced the lunacy of this organization a few times.  I feel quite comfortable urging everyone that will listen to lobby their representatives to withdraw from the organization in its present form.  While the idea of a world organization dedicated to the peaceful discussion of ideas and differences is quite appealing, in practice this has deteriorated into not just a criminal organization, but a criminal organization that is quite dedicated to robbing the US of any wealth possible and in the end the destruction of the US as a country. 

Stephen, I'm not saying that you are uninformed, I am saying that you are wrong. 

[gatorback]

You know what, Kyoto may have been wrong, but not working to reduce CO2 emissions is even wronger.

[NotNow]

"Sigh"

GB, I understand.  Again, instead of blowing billions on criminals that steal our money both at home (financial debacle) and overseas (UN), lets use our hard earned tax money to encourage what WORKS to be developed in this country.  Lets help hard working Americans to power their homes at least partially with solar panels.  This is doable RIGHT NOW.  Lets give those same Americans a finacial incentive to move into plug in electric automobiles powered by electricity generated with nuclear power.  Let's utilize the crude oil here in our country to lessen our dependence on OPEC and stabilize the cost of energy in our economy.  All of these things can be done right now and would greatly reduce CO2 emissions in this country without the massive transfer of soverignty and wealth required by Kyoto.  These actions would also show the world that America does not demand compliance with our beliefs, but we will lead the way and set an example to other countries and perhaps then the Chinas and Indias will also reduce their CO2 and other greenhouse emissions just to follow us into the new energy economy. 

[civil42806]

An Obama Cult Follower?

Are you serious?  Um.  Dave, you sound as unhinged as your argument.

Ive been worried about the impact of sea level change since Katrina.  Long before I had ever heard of Barak Obama.

And since you have not read the IPCC, and neither has River, according to both your admissions, Im afraid that it is you who do not know what you are talking about by definition.

You cannot simply refuse to read the source material of a subject and then blaze around about your objections to the idea in a way that accuses others of being uninformed.  That is the very pinnacle of obtuse insanity.

Its similar to Notnow knowing that somehow, someway, hes opposed to the Kyoto Protocols.....whatever they are....

If you are going to contribute to the conversation, can you at least be serious and save these weird diatribes for after you know what you are talking about?

What part of the IPCC did you read, its not like its a single report.  If anyone has the time here is a link to the last series of the IPCC reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

[Charleston native]

You know what, Kyoto may have been wrong, but not working to reduce CO2 emissions is even wronger.

That's right. It's not the action that counts, just the intentions. Spoken like a true liberal.

Stephen, I think it is "obtuse insanity" to disqualify one's argument just because he/she didn't read the entire document of the IPCC. I've read portions of it, and I've read other summaries. I know what the intent of the IPCC's research is, and I know what they're trying to do. I think that is enough knowledge to have an informed opinion. You just think it is ridiculous because I disagree with their findings.

There's a word for making sure everybody thinks the same way: group think. You and gator suscribe to it whole-heartedly.

[gatorback]

CN, your frustration has obviously turned to flat out anger.  You're not even thinking clearly now.  You're on tilt. LOL

[Charleston native]

Hardly, gator. I'm not angry. Maybe I'm being more cynical with you considering what you are saying about this subject. But it is clear that you are towing an ideological line, especially with your statement that I quoted. I'm just calling it like I see it. That's not anger, that's called clarity.

You may not lay claim to a particular ideology, and I commend you for that. But with this issue, it's different. I have a problem with good intentions, especially from government.

[gatorback]

He wont Stephen.  He'll simply ignore the question or call somebody a name.  Like the 5th graders in my neighborhood.  Just like this reply went unanswered.  Oh, well, he did call me a liberal.

"... human produced green house gases are not responsible for global warming ..."

Right!?!  The burden of proof is on you.  Go.

[gatorback]

Well great, Charleston.   Give us a rough outline of the latest IPCC report and annotate the parts that are clearly wrong.

I look forward to comparing your data.

Yes.  Me too.  In fact, why don't you schedule Copenhagen in December to refute all the GW crap.

[Clem1029]

Sigh....just to be clear, we're talking about the same IPCC that has said in it's reports:

Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, particularly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partly predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.

And....

The state of science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes.

And...

Climate models now have some skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850...

(Personal aside...the models have "some skill" in "predicting" KNOWN VALUES? Makes me feel better)
And...

While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model “false” in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment.

And...

The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. Rather the focus must be upon the prediction of the probability distribution of the system's future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.

All of which are quotes taken directly from the ipcc.ch link provided. Sounds like a crack set of findings to base a massive economic collapse on!

Can we move on from the IPCC report being some gold standard that "proves" AGW is happening? Or do you want to keep up a myth that even the IPCC's own reports don't support?

[Clem1029]

um....i suppose you know that you can apply the same semantics with the Bible.
What kind of person would therefore assume that the Bible doesnt support the existence of Jesus?

Maybe you could...but it's not my faith that needs to be tested to be verified. It's yours.

And simply dismissing valid concerns as "semantics?" There's a great debate tactic there...

[NotNow]

equivocate
One entry found.


   
Sponsored LinksEquivocate Definition
What Is Equivocate? Find Out w/the Dictionary Toolbar
Dictionary.alottoolbars.com


Main Entry: equiv·o·cate 
Pronunciation: \i-ˈkwi-və-ˌkāt\
Function: intransitive verb
Inflected Form(s): equiv·o·cat·ed; equiv·o·cat·ing
Date: 1590
1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says
synonyms see lie
â€" equiv·o·ca·tion  \-ˌkwi-və-ˈkā-shən\ noun
â€" equiv·o·ca·tor  \-ˈkwi-və-ˌkā-tər\ noun

How are my semantics here?

[Charleston native]

Less informed? Now that's rich.

What's the point in carrying this discussion anymore? It is pointless, because we keep going round and round with the same arguments. Good grief.