By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Under Codex (and U.S. HARMonization with Codex) physicians will no longer be able to tell you that eating broccoli may help to reduce your risk of breast cancer since Codex forbids advertising which links food components and health benefits and defines advertising as anything which causes a change in behavior.
Nutricide
I would be surprised if 50% of science is straightforward and totally honest. I am being kind to those on the forum that are scientists. They also need to look at what they are doing and determine if they ever tweaked data to have something come out the way they wanted it to.
In the old days, their scientific methods were just too primitive to produce correct science.
I stand by my stipulation that very few science agencies produce INTENTIONALLY INCORRECT science.
However ridiculous SOME OF YOU might think this statement is, I am one of the people who is MOST of the time educated enough to filter the real science from the crap.
Right now, I don't think anyone can trust very much of the GW science. I trust the reported temperatures, again, however ridiculous Gary might think that is.
For the most part, people believe what they want to believe. Very few are flexible enough to step outside the box and review things objectively.
Hmmm...apparently that includes those "scientists" we are talking about !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Check the Weather Underground for Phoenix. There are about 30 stations reporting the Temperature. It varies from 69 degrees to 81 degrees. Which is probably correct for each location in Phoenix. However if the Hockey stick scientist decides he will only use the 81 degree because it better suits his agenda, you have erroneous data. We have shown the sites the GW community has used to get their data. The temperature data is flawed, and the people using it, know it is flawed. That makes them big fat liars. I think the reason you see a downward trend is there are those that are using the Madis network that gives a much more balanced look at the weather in any given area.
You should read Mark Twain "What is Man". It will give you a better insight into human nature. Man is basically dishonest, not honest as you want to believe. Throw in money and greed enhances the dishonest tendencies of man.
There is "one" OFFICIAL temperature every day for every reporting site.
Hockey stick boy did not go through and choose the "highest-reported-direct-sunlight-behind-a-magnifying-glass-on-a-black-asphalt-p- arking-lot-temperature".
They use the "official" temperature as reported by the National Weather Service.
There is only one.
And how do you know that for absolute fact? How do you even know what time of day they took the reading? Do they take it when the sun is at the highest point for each given station? Do they compensate if a given station has thick cloud cover on a given day. When a cloud comes over here the temp drops 10 degrees in a matter of minutes. The more I look at the methods used the more I am convinced it was a big joke. I wonder how many of the emails will admit to the errors in the compilation of temperature data?
Anyone tracking temps uses the official temps for the prior day to use for data for future analysis. Each location has a high and a low for the day.
Merely common sense, my amigo.
CLIMATEGATE changes everything !!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Attention whore doesn't pay as well.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Yeah, but I'm not your wife, your kid or your mother. :P On the other hand I'll consider you OUTSTANDING in sticking to your core principles even with the hard time we have given you on here.
gracie's PhD reminded me of a similar dishonest grant recieptant closer to present day.
I attend a farmer's market which was founded by a woman who received several hundred thosand dollars to research "sustainable" farming in the local area. She did organize the market but then dumped all the expenses of running it on the farmers.
By the time she was ousted by the board of directors all the grant money had disappeared. She did buy a very nice house for herself though.
She never had to account for the money that went bye-bye.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
That is well and good for someone keeping records for any given area. They can look back at November 24th 2009 and say with some accuracy that the high for that day was somewhere between 69 and 81 degrees. If you happen to be at the airport it was 75 degrees. A nice average. When you try to project what the weather (Climate) will be 100 years from now + or - one tenth of a degree that shotgun approach to record keeping becomes a joke. Now that is common sense.
By the way, that is exactly what the GW cult would have the World believe. That it will be warmer 100 years from now, to the extent that life in many areas will be impossible. Again common sense tells me they don't know their (bleep) from a hole in the ground. If it is move to higher ground. If not put on more cloths. Don't tax my electric bill today on the slight possibility that the temperature in 2109 will be warmer.
Reality can bite, eh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Hmmmm:
Hiding evidence of global cooling
Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, and professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University, who has been an important scientist in the climate debate, have come under particular scrutiny. Among his e-mails, Mr. Jones talked to Mr. Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-coolin- - g/
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?
If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)
When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:
Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-fina- - l-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
This is bigger than ACORN setting up whore houses for underage illegals....
Trying not to be sarcastic here.
Umm...how does this prove GW, larsb? Doesn't the earth play out this kind of gig for itself naturally on a repeating and repeated basis? Again and again?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Greenland was first inhabited about 4,500 years ago. The earliest residents arrived from the west, but either left or died due to periods of exceptionally cold weather and/or poor hunting. Signs of their presence have been found near Maniitsoq. The region seems to have then been uninhabited for about 3,000 years.
The next migration came from the east, following "Erik the Red" Thorwaldsson's exploration of the southern coast of Greenland between 982 and 985 AD. In 986, he led a group of Viking families from Iceland, and settled at Brattahlid, traditionally known as Qassiarsuk (route map). The climate at this time was very warm, much wamer than it is today, and crops were able to do well. It seems likely that the name "Greenland" was given to the country, not just as wishful thinkful, but because it was a climatic fact at that time.
The mild climatic period was fairly short-lived in geologic terms - by about 1200 AD, the ever-increasing cold was making life extremely difficult, and some years no supply ships were able to reach Greenland through the ice-choked seas. During this period, Norway has assumed responsibility for supplying the Norse settlers in Greenland, but as the climate worsened it became a very difficult task.
By about 1350, the settlements in southwestern Greenland had been abandoned. There is no evidence to prove where the people went to, but one persistent legend says that they went to North America, eventually settling in North Dakota. This legend claims that they were the original Mandan Indians.
http://explorenorth.com/library/weekly/aa121799.htm
There is no way for you to prove that is true, and there is no way for me or anyone else to prove it's not true.
That dilemma is the crux of the GW/CC problem.
It would not be such a big deal if the socialists here in the U.S. did not see this as another opportunity for income redistribution and an end to our way of life. That is the real crux of the problem.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZS__ICbwyc
That IS the point I have tried to make from the beginning of the thread. So why are the MM/CC scientists so set on discounting the ideas and studies of those that do not believe that man is the root cause of climate change?
An HONEST scientist welcomes peer review. That makes most of the AGW scientists dishonest as they despise other viewpoints. After all they decided there was a consensus.
The information sought is directly relevant to the exploding “ClimateGate” scandal revealing document destruction, coordinated efforts in the U.S. and UK to avoid complying with both countries’ freedom of information laws, and apparent and widespread intent to defraud at the highest levels of international climate science bodies. Numerous informed commenters had alleged such behavior for years, all of which appears to be affirmed by leaked emails, computer codes and other data from the Climatic Research Unit of the UK’s East Anglia University.
All of that material and that sought for years by CEI go to the heart of the scientific claims and campaign underpinning the Kyoto Protocol, its planned successor treaty, “cap-and-trade” legislation and the EPA’s threatened regulatory campaign to impose similar measures through the back door.
One of the things CEI would like to know about is the quiet correction NASA made to it’s temperature data a couple of years ago. The “mainstream” media probably made sure you didn’t hear about it, but an error was found by in their statistical data going back for many years. The result of the corrected data: 1998 was no longer the hottest year on record, but 1934.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/11/climategate-may-spur-lawsuit-against-nasa-for- -denied-information-requests/
Add Google to the list of accomplices to Climategate. Try googling Climate email or climategate and see where they try to send you as of today. Be persistent and you will get your information, no thanks to google. Al Gore's lackey business associates.
If one were to say,
"Liberals believe in MMGW"
and
"Conservatives do not"
Then that disenfranchises conservatives who tend to believe in the warming trend (like myself) and also any liberals who do NOT believe in it.
Where does that leave people in that group, of which I am a member?
Confused and annoyed, that's where.
I do not agree that it should be politicized in any way. Science and politics should NEVER become or be bedfellows.
My feelings on GW/CC are that we should curb and curtail anything harmful we do the planet, REGARDLESS of the political reason which may or may not be behind it.
Burning extra gas pollutes the air more than driving a car which does not pollute as much. Tax credits should be given each year to all drivers of cars which average more than 35 MPG on the EPA scale.
Gas-powered leaf Blowers are the spawn of the Devil himself and should be outlawed in every state.
Coal-fueled electricity should be replaced in every instance with cleaner power like solar and wind.
People should recycle like madmen/madwomen. When in doubt, put it in the recycle bin, and let the people at the recycle center redistribute it as required. If you are walking down the street and see a water bottle on the ground, pick it up and get it to a recycle bin. I do that on hiking trails all the time, and in parking lots sometimes. If your workplace provides recycle bins, USE THEM, and if not, ask your boss why they are not available.
The government SHOULD reserve the right to FORCE us to do things which change our habits toward the good of the planet. NOT necessarily with taxation, but with things like forcing utility companies to clean up their act, etc.
I've lived long enough to realize that MOST people, when left on their own, will take the LAZY way out and not do anything on their own, and will CERTAINLY resist being "told" to do things. Grow up, people. The good of the many is more important than the good of the YOU.
You have to know that is a UTOPIAN dream that WILL NEVER come to fruition. We have too much coal to ignore it as an energy source. The cleaner it is burned the better. You did see where using coal to generate electricity for an EV is about 3 times cleaner than driving a gas powered vehicle.
There are fines for littering and not recycling in many places. In CA there is a $16 charge with each new TV sold. I presume that will cover disposal somewhere down the road. Not all recycling has been proven to be environmentally sound.
It WILL be cleaned up.
Solar WILL start replacing it.
Wind WILL start replacing it.
Time is the only obstacle right now. Progress marches on.
Just as we went from hooves to wheels, we WILL get off fossil fuels someday.
Just as in any other area, there are wrong ways and right ways to do things. You don't condemn an entire process when it's found that someone somewhere is doing the process incorrectly.
There is no debate on that one either - if it is more effiecient for you to take public transportation, then by your logic you MUST -
If you can rationalize why not, then I can rationalize why I can keep a leaf blower or anything else you want to ban...
If all who commute alone drove PZEVs, that would be a great step in the right direction.
Any "extra" pollution I might cause by driving is MORE than made up for by other things I do. Like the solar panels going onto my roof next month, and the radiant barrier in my attic, and the fact that I spend less than $30 a YEAR heating my hot water, even without solar, and wash all my clothes in cold water in a high-efficiency washer and dry my clothes on the "extra low" setting, and air dry my dishes and some of my clothes.
Nice Try though..........:)
If you do all I do, and have solar panels on your home, and recycle like a madman, and spend no more than $30 a year on heating your water, have all Energy Star appliances, and drive a PZEV, then you can use your leaf blower every day without guilt.
We've been over this before - we have higher mpg vehicles than decades ago, and this has not reduced the amount of gasoline we use in this country. Higher mpg alone does not reduce consumption. There are more people driving everyday, and we drive further than we did decades ago.
And we all know that the future of the globe does not depend on the 5% of the population that lives in the U.S. India which has over a billion people is actively trying to get 200M-300M of their middle class into $3,000 low-tech gasoline and diesel cars.
Gas-powered leaf Blowers are the spawn of the Devil himself and should be outlawed in every state.
Why pick on leaf-blowers? I would guess there are many more lawn-mowers used, and used far more often. Maybe you'd have more impact by going after golfers, and the damage their maintenance causes.
Follow the money larsb on this and every other issue. People in Government, and the wealthy are about collecting wealth and power. If scientists are being directly or indirectly funded by these groups, you can rest assured that they are walking the line, just like everyone else collecting a check.
I spend a little extra on my hot water, but I don't have an AC in my house, or use it my car. Are you forgetting that you waste energy on AC, when others even in AZ and Mexico get by without it?
Tis a bit harder in the states, unlike Mexico, where you can flag down a bus at just about any wide spot in the road.
We did fly back to the States.
Find a guy who has not spent thousands of dollars making their AZ home more energy efficient, and pick on them.
Yes, we had some freaks here in town try to go without A/C this past summer, doing a blog for a local paper.
Sleeping in wet sheets, putting underwear in the freezer, etc etc blah blah.
I'd rather just use 40% less energy than other houses my size, and get 85% of my power from the sun. That's MORE than my share.
So as long as one is willing to make trade offs there is no need to ban anything right?
If you choose to have AC and choose to drive 5,000 miles for pleasure they you can choose your camary -
One could take an extreme view that there should be no personal cars on the interstate - that is usually (but not always) driving for pleasure and driving for pleasure is clearly a waste of resources and bad for the planet. Imagine if we banned all cars from traveling more that say 100 miles on the highway and forced all people on public transportation. You would be unhappy with that regulation as you have made other choices to mitigate that.
Blanket bans on other stuff is exactly the same - especially for people who have made other choices similar to what you have done.
I mean at the end of the day one solution won't fit everybody will it?
The "non-CO2" pollutants are the worst ones - but a PZEV puts out VERY little in 100,000 miles.
"A vehicle with a PZEV rating emits about two pounds of hydrocarbons in 100,000 miles of driving, the equivalent of spilling a pint of gasoline.”
So think about that - people who spill gasoline on the ground when they overfill their tanks are polluting more than I am by driving my car several thousand miles.
Wow.
No, "I" personally don't.
I want the people who know the most about pollution to decide.
And just about EVERYONE who knows ANYTHING about pollution knows how dirty those leaf blowers are. In addition to the dirty pollution from their unfiltered exhaust, they blow PM into the air, which combines with diesel exhaust and other factors to make the air very unhealthy.
And by the way - I live 5.3 miles from my workplace - a choice I made. And many times I have biked most of it, took a city bus, or Segwayed all of it. I've never driven it in anything dirtier than a hybrid car.
Banning gas-powered leaf blowers IS one of the very rare instances of one size DOES fit all.
P.S. And I personally would endorse a mandatory "public transportation minimum" for commuters in big cities which have excellent systems. If I were mandated to take PT, I would lose nothing but a little time.
Oh, and once my kids are grown and not relying on me for transportation, I will DEFINITELY not be taking a car to work ever, unless it's electric.
http://www.biotech.bioetica.org/docta65.htm
Yes, we had some freaks here in town try to go without A/C this past summer, doing a blog for a local paper.
Someone also went a bit bonkers up by Phoenix this early fall. I'm talking about the guy who took a lot of money from some people to go "rest in the sauna" over there. Only things got a little bit out of hand.
Personally my wife and I rejoiced after Sears finished installing central air in our Willcox home. That was in early July of 2008. For about a year and 4 months we basically toasted during the monsoon months over here. :sick:
But Phoenix is about 10 degrees hotter on hot days than our days in Willcox, so to me those people are trying to do something their bodies can't really keep up with.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
So you would not accept a job that you loved (say speaking to school kids on the merits of getting rid of gas powered leaf blowers) and paid $500,000. a year if it involved traveling, by car a couple of days a week...in a company provided Cadillac Escalade?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
And I'd use my excessive salary to convert my Escalade to all-electric.
.......back to topic please.........before we get whacked..........
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
No I'm afraid scientists have estimated that the average U.S. citizen needs to reduce their energy consumption by 90% to keep the CO2 level from rising. So if you're only using 40% less energy, you have a long way to go.
In order to reach a 90% reduction you're going to have to restrict your diet to locally grown foods - no more bananas shipped and trucked from South America, and even forget about veggies from CA. You'd have to give up all the goods you get from overseas, which is about everything; start knitting your clothes. And just forget about buying anything with plastic in it as you need oil to make plastics. Your solar panels on the roof do not produce energy to cover all those bits of energy used to produce and transport all the things you buy. Those are the sorts of changes everyone would have to make to keep CO2 from increasing. A 19th century lifestyle is where you end-up. You can watch the news and when you see the typical Afghan village, that's what you end up with if you want to be green-enough not to raise CO2 levels.
good point - back to cars -
I am bummed up here in seattle as we are making transportaion decisions that will not resolve capacity issues based on the fear that all single occupancy vehicles are bad - e.g. building bridges and tunnels that are too small. With car technology moving towards electricity vs oil as the power source I have this vision of thousands of commuters in their plug in battery powered cars....stuck in traffic.... :sick:
granted these traffic jams will be quiet and fume free, but they will be traffic jams none the less...
Once everyone else gets to 40%, I'll start my moves toward 90%.
Have a Happy Holiday Season All !!!
How do you rescue someone who's battery runs down on the LA freeway because the AC was keeping him cool sitting there. EVs will increase traffic no doubt as people feel they are Super Green. Especially if they turn out to be cheaper to drive. Though that is a big ? in my mind with our horrendous rates for electricity.
Australia is leading the revolt against Al Gore’s great big AGW conspiracy – just as the Aussie geologist and AGW sceptic Professor Ian Plimer predicted it would.
ABC news reports that five frontbenchers from Australia’s opposition Liberal party have resigned their portfolios rather than follow their leader Malcolm Turnbull in voting with Kevin Rudd’s Government on a new Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.
Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.
Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.
The ETS is Australia’s version of America’s proposed Cap and Trade and the EU’s various carbon reduction schemes: a way of taxing business on its CO2 output. As Professor Plimer pointed out when I interviewed him in the summer, this threatens to cause enormous economic damage in Australia’s industrial and mining heartlands, not least because both are massively dependent on Australia’s vast reserves of coal. It is correspondingly extremely unpopular with Aussie’s outside the pinko, libtard metropolitan fleshpots.
Though the ETS squeaked narrowly through Australia’s House of Representatives, its Senate is proving more robust – thanks not least to the widespread disgust by the many Senators who have read Professor Plimer’s book Heaven And Earth at the dishonesty and corruption of the AGW industry. If the Senate keeps rejecting the scheme, then the Australian government will be forced to dissolve.
For the rapidly increasing number of us who believe that AGW is little more than a scheme by bullying eco-fascists to deprive us of our liberty, by big government to spread its controlling tentacles into every aspect our lives, and scheming industrialists such as Al Gore to enrich themselves through carbon trading, this principled act by Australia’s Carbon Five is fantastic news.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100018003/climategate-five-aus- sie-mps-lead-the-way-by-resigning-in-disgust-over-carbon-tax/
The people need to rise up and crush the whole Man Made Global Warming cult. It is worse than the wackos in Waco or Jim Jones in Guyana. Al Gore and his minions would have US all drink his tainted Koolaid.
The impression left by the Climategate emails is that the global warming game has been rigged from the start.
Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, from which the emails were lifted, is singing from the same climate hymnal. "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues," he said this week.
We don't doubt that Mr. Jones would have phrased his emails differently if he expected them to end up in the newspaper. His May 2008 email to Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report: "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?" does not "read well," it's true. (Mr. Mann has said he didn't delete any such emails.)
But the furor over these documents is not about tone, colloquialisms or even whether climatologists are nice people in private. The real issue is what the messages say about the way the much-ballyhooed scientific consensus on global warming was arrived at in the first place, and how even now a single view is being enforced. In short, the impression left by the correspondence among Messrs. Mann and Jones and others is that the climate-tracking game has been rigged from the start.
According to this privileged group, only those whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. And sure enough, any challenges that critics have lobbed at climatologists from outside this clique are routinely dismissed and disparaged.
It's easy to manufacture a scientific consensus when you get to decide what counts as science.
The response to this among the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science we've got. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature.
Even so, by rigging the rules, they've made it impossible to know how good it really is. And then, one is left to wonder why they felt the need to rig the game in the first place, if their science is as robust as they claim. If there's an innocent explanation for that, we'd love to hear it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574559630382048494.html?m- od=googlenews_wsj
NBC news had a big story tonight on global warming and the upcoming conference. Probably took up about 6 or 7 minutes of air time...and not one mention about CLIMATEGATE !!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
When research is conducted to push an agenda it is rarely honest science. This started as a political movement and they have cherry picked scientific tid bits to make their case. Climategate seems to be proving that beyond reasonable doubt.
It's even worse on the net. I've seen a lot of posts on Climategate flagged minutes after they are posted. Not so with the standard pro-GW propaganda.
I commend Edmunds for having a more mature position.
I've even heard that the white house has hired paid flaggers to do this dirty work.
Of course I read that on the web so I know it's true. :confuse:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Keeping track of those that go to certain sites I am sure. Like the Drudge Report.
I don't think they will be able to stop the Climategate investigation. Here is the latest I can find from New Zealand.
An agency of the New Zealand government has been cooking the books to create a warming trend where none exists, according to a joint research project by global warming skeptics at the Climate Conversation Group and the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. The chief cook? Dr. Jim Salinger, considered one of the country's top scientists, who began the graph in the 1980s when he was at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK. CRU, of course, has become ground zero of Climategate at Dr. Salinger has maintained close relations with CRU since, as seen in the Climategate emails.
What do the uncooked books show? Rather than warming over the last hundred years, New Zealand's temperature has been steady.
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/11/26/lawrence-s- olomon-new-zealand-s-climategate.aspx
Here is an interesting PDF about NZ temperatures both cooked and raw.
http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/global_warming_nz2.pdf