Are hurricanes more damaging, or is there just more to damage?

[Alex]

more proof of Al Gore's quackery. From another well respected scientist.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

[lets-retire]

CFB--Thanks, those are interesting stats.

eridanus--The part I find interesting is that if you look back to 1983 the second fastest Chevrolet car only had 180 hp. Now unless you are driving a econo-box a car is essentially considered under powered unless it makes 180 hp.

I'll bet now that people are freaking out about gas prices, you'll see the big 3 CAFE averages start going up again. After all the imports didn't really have a competitive full sized truck until Nissan came out with thiers. The foreign makers were able to make great progress with cars, but if you wanted a good quality truck you had to buy from the big 3. That in itself is rather impressive that they were able to keep the MPG average up while selling so many trucks.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex more proof of Al Gore's quackery. From another well respected scientist. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

At least I quoted sources like EPA, NOAA, and NAS... :

I don't get my "facts" from Al Gore, EarthFirst, or Fox News...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

"You can trust us. We're from the government. We're here to help you!"

[laurence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex more proof of Al Gore's quackery. From another well respected scientist. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597

The wall street journal? An objective source indeed! (Drip, drip - that's sarcasm btw).

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny "You can trust us.* We're from the government.* We're here to help you!"

True enough...

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence The wall street journal? An objective source indeed! (Drip, drip - that's sarcasm btw).

reverting to the tried and true 'strawman' argument, nice. When confronted with evidence that runs contrarty to your opinion, it is easier to attack the source than the validity of the argument. BTW, the WSJ did not write the article. It was written by Mr. RICHARD S. LINDZEN- the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Next someone will call him a 'rent a scientist', right? Hell, why not just attack MIT too? it's a sh*t school, right? : lol...

[laurence]

He cites no sources, he admits to a lot of the points Al makes in his movie, and he chants the same mantra while ignoring what was shown clearly in the movie. Example :

"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing."

True enough, and Gore showed a chart of core samples from the polar caps showing this variablility for the last 650 thousand years, and shows very dramatically how the last one hundred years has seen the range of that variablity blown all to hell.

Interesting to talk of tried and true strawman argument when you attacked the source rather than the data first (Gore = quack). I was just trying to speak your language.

The numbers speak for themselves. The opponents of global warming keep rat-holing and shifting the debate from one minor point to another, like any good defense lawyer. Keep raising the doubt, and even when it's refuted, move on to another and another corner, until everyone is left with a feeling there is some doubt somewhere.

There were plenty of well respected scientists who didn't believe cigarettes were bad for you. "More Doctors smoke Camels than any other brand of cigarette!"

[Alex]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence He cites no sources, he admits to a lot of the points Al makes in his movie, and he chants the same mantra while ignoring what was shown clearly in the movie. Example : "A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing." True enough, and Gore showed a chart of core samples from the polar caps showing this variablility for the last 650 thousand years, and shows very dramatically how the last one hundred years has seen the range of that variablity blown all to hell. Interesting to talk of tried and true strawman argument when you attacked the source rather than the data first (Gore = quack). I was just trying to speak your language. The numbers speak for themselves. The opponents of global warming keep rat-holing and shifting the debate from one minor point to another, like any good defense lawyer. Keep raising the doubt, and even when it's refuted, move on to another and another corner, until everyone is left with a feeling there is some doubt somewhere. There were plenty of well respected scientists who didn't believe cigarettes were bad for you. "More Doctors smoke Camels than any other brand of cigarette!"

there were plenty of 'scientists' who believed the world was going into another ice age just 30 years ago too. Anyway, You are obviously convinved. Why don't you just go ahead and sell you home and car, buy a tent and go live 'off the grid'? At least have the courage to live by your convictions. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Anyone else notice the difference between contesting someones ideas with actual facts and data and personal attacks on an individual?

[HFWR]

Strawman, indeed... *

[eridanus]

Quote:

Originally Posted by lets-retire I'll bet now that people are freaking out about gas prices, you'll see the big 3 CAFE averages start going up again.

Absolutely.

Of course, there is a lag. If gas prices keep above ~$3, it won't be reflected in CAFE until, what, 5 years from now? There are also hybrid trucks coming from Japan that have the same torque (or more!) than gasoline models.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Maybe not. Ford execs have said that they intend to continue to build large trucks and SUV's because thats what their customers want.

Basically the only time the CAFE went up is when the government mandated it, and it went up to the mandated level and then stopped.

So one could infer from this that unless gas gets a lot more expensive, people will still keep buying larger, less efficient vehicles and the car companies will keep making them, and the car companies will not bother to boost fuel economy unless forced to do so by the government. Which I dont like, but it looks like thems the facts.

[eridanus]

Interestingly, the NAS report he cites (I think - hard to tell without citations) actually CONTRADICTS his variability theory by using satellite data (see below for more on this). Maybe he didn't get that far in the report?

As far as the Oreskes meta-study, Peiser is changing the terms of the work performed. In other words, he's adding categories. Even with those categories added, he apparently doesn't understand "consensus." It's not 100% or even 99%. It's 75%. We have consensus. What we don't know is whether we should make societal changes based on that consensus.

Bush's science CCSP: He mentions the satellite data again, which CONTRADICTS his variability theory.

Finally, he provides no evidence or citations for his "variability" theory. It's just...accepted. Sloppy.

[laurence]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex there were plenty of 'scientists' who believed the world was going into another ice age just 30 years ago too. Anyway, You are obviously convinved. Why don't you just go ahead and sell you home and car, buy a tent and go live 'off the grid'? At least have the courage to live by your convictions. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone.

The rest of who alone?? You are the only one freaking out! Did an environmentalist beat you up when you were a kid? Did your Dad lose his job at the DDT plant? Don't look now, but you have a big red button on your forehead that's very easy to push! My comments were all very moderate and open to differing opinions. Now you as a new poster with 60 posts is going to tell a Moderator will 1000+ to leave the board? Are you attempting to bully me? Intimidate me into not expressing veiws you find distressing? Express any view you want, you've made it clear with your intro posts that you aren't a troll, but your method of communicating leaves much to be desired, guy.

[cube_rat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Laurence Express any view you want, you've made it clear with your intro posts that you aren't a troll, but your method of communicating leaves much to be desired, guy.

This is precisely why I didn't touch this thread with a ten foot pole. Some people get their thongs in a wad and try to politic every topic they touch.

Maybe you should find some research by Lindzen as to WHY the Amazon River was dry as a bone last year. Not only the mystery surrounding the dry river bed but the long range environmental implications to the jungle and rain forest.

[Martha]

Alex, these types of statements are not arguments:

Quote:

The whole global warming issue is no more than a tool being put to use by a group with an anti-capitalist agenda.

Quote:

Notice I said "Climate change' thats so the enviro-wackos can still blame those pesky humans when the current warming trend reverts to cooling.

Quote:

Oh, sorry, I forgot, THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING....boohooboobhoo....

Quote:

You are obviously convinved. Why don't you just go ahead and sell you home and car, buy a tent and go live 'off the grid'? At least have the courage to live by your convictions. Otherwise leave the rest of us alone.

These are statements to bait people. Baiting does not lead to the truth. I didn't see you take facts that someone else cited, such as the information gleaned from Greenland ice samples, and say that the methodology was wrong or that their conclusions were wrong for such and such a reason. Instead, all you have are posts and links to information that says: wrong! wrong! it's a plot! People have been wrong before so they must be wrong again!

I am extra suspicious of your position because you don't even concede the possibility that human activity may be causing global climate change. After all, there are plenty of respected scientists who draw that conclusion. Why do you feel they must be wrong and those you cite must be right?

One of the biggest problems I see with our society is the incredible distrust people have in science. People are no longer looking at science as the source for determining facts, but a war of opinions. The press is partly at fault for reporting research in progress as if it is obsolute fact. Scientists are at fault for running to the press before publishing their findings for peer review. Or, people who profess to be scientists give their opinion without appropriate research backing that opinion. Junk science. Politicians will pick any piece of so called science to support a position they already have. NO! The science should come first, then develope the position. So, it is hard to get at the truth or even the search for truth with all the noise out there. Alex, you are only adding to the noise.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martha One of the biggest problems I see with our society is the incredible distrust people have in science.* People are no longer looking at science as the source for determining facts, but a war of opinions. The press is partly at fault for reporting research in progress as if it is obsolute fact.* Scientists are at fault for running to the press before publishing their findings for peer review.* *Or, people who profess to be scientists give their opinion without appropriate research backing that opinion.

Maybe people should be treated according to the strength of their convictions...

http://www.msnbc.com/comics/daily.asp?sFile=db060702

[d]

Quote:

The science should come first

i'm a bit late to this thread (story of my life), but my reference in another thread seems apt here as well; see "Don't Believe the Hype
Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming."http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
true, the author is not a politician, but a mere Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, but perhaps worth reading anyway.

[Martha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d i'm a bit late to this thread (story of my life), but my reference in another thread seems apt here as well; see "Don't Believe the Hype Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming."http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 true, the author is not a politician, but a mere Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, but perhaps worth reading anyway.

Yes, Lindzen is a scientist with respected research on tides. He was on a National Academy of Scienes panel of 11 that worked on a report titled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. He disagreed with the panel's conclusions. Read about him here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

Read the discussion as well.