Chrysler 300M Enthusiasts Club
  • Global Warming

  • A place to discuss the politics of the day.
Membership Banner

A place to discuss the politics of the day.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
 #247417  by krautmaster
 February 10th, 2011, 1:46 pm
"Mote, upset that Albright ("Mark Albright, a part-time UW meteorologist and, until this week, the associate state climatologist") was broadly distributing e-mails about the issue, last week told Albright that he would have to let Mote preview any e-mails before sending them out, if he was tying his work to the state climatologist's office....Mote's position as the state climatologist is a volunteer job that doesn't carry any official recognition or rules. Mote agreed to do the job several years ago, and his colleagues accepted it. The office collects and disseminates climate information and advises the state on climate-related issues....When Albright refused Mote's ultimatum, Mote barred him from associating himself with the state climatologist's office....Mote said Albright was sending out messages showing just his side of the story, and airing an analysis that hadn't gone through proper quality checks. As a representative of the climatologist's office, there needed to be standards, he said."

Your whole argument is based on the fact that Albright was doing bad science and got called on it by his boss? Albright should have known better than to send out E-mails from an official agency that hadn't been through the peer review process. You know- the process where you write a paper stating your hypothesis, then back it up with data so your peers can review it and either agree or find fault, in which case you correct the deficiencies and publish it again--you don't go about science by posting e-mails that state your opinions. Also, a part time meteorologist really has no business trying to over rule climatologists. These two disciplines are vastly different-meteorologists are concerned with what the weather is this week, not what has been going on over the last 60 years or more. Maybe if it was the hydrologist (who is concerned with snow pack and reservoir levels) who was questioning wether the decrease was 30% or 50% I'd be more sympathetic, but to me it sounds like Albright was over stepping his authority and got called on it.
User avatar
 #247418  by krautmaster
 February 10th, 2011, 1:50 pm
dirtrider32191 wrote:
krautmaster wrote: Moderators... you should lock down this thread before I have to drive all the way to Virginia and share a six pack of brew with Bill to try and figure out where he's coming from ... I can't afford to do that right now
x3 on the Virginia brew/politics meet, as long as its not snowing down there

My brother lives up in the DC area, next time I'm back there visiting maybe Bill and I can meet half way, perhaps in Petersburg when they are having a NASCAR race? ... sounds like fun, but I insist on tail gating and cooking up a big batch of steaks and shrimp to go with the brew!
User avatar
 #247419  by mabraham
 February 10th, 2011, 2:04 pm
Deal! tailgating, steak, shrimp, nascar, highly unbiased politics discussion, sounds like a plan.
User avatar
 #247474  by Bill Putney
 February 10th, 2011, 6:42 pm
JTROANOKE wrote:I only live 100 miles from Bill. I like beer. Got your back, Bill!
Hah! You live even closer now - we moved to Radford, and I have family in Roanoke that we visit frequently.

Rich - It amazes me how the fact that the data was proven to have been faked by careful selection of the short term rises and peaks and picking the low spots in the early years and the high spots in the later years to inflate the difference (purely an "accident" you understand) is not important. What's important to you is that Albright didn't follow protocol - therefore the false science is no longer false. Then, after the public embarrassment, in an attempt to save face, they essentially vote on the correct percentage of change - not by looking at the numbers, but by what they can politically get by with claiming. Sorry - that's not science.

So question: If the peer review process was getting followed like it would be in real science, how'd the bogus data get out as policy-determining science in the first place? Answer: It was not honestly peer reviewed at all. When they find data that supports what they want to say, they don't question it - it gets passed right along for the headlines of how GW is accelerating at a much faster pace than originally thought. Then when someone forces the truth to come out about the faked data and it turns out things were not as originally reported based on the hoax, that gets buried unless someone leaves the reservation like Albright did and it can't be ignored by the press. Yep - quite an embarrassment - and that was the problem - not the original fake science.

Like the guy said, "In all my years of doing science, I've never seen this sort of gag-order approach to doing science".
 #247478  by isrb710
 February 10th, 2011, 7:31 pm
I'm not sure about you all, but between last winter and this winter, I've shovelled all the d@"# global warming I can stand! It was -6 Farenheit (actual, NOT wind chill) on my way to work this am. (That's -21 for our Canadian friends.)
User avatar
 #247527  by Bill Putney
 February 11th, 2011, 6:58 am
isrb710 wrote:...It was -6 Farenheit (actual, NOT wind chill) on my way to work this am...
Now Ron - you are not a meteorologist, much less a climatologist, so you are not qualified to say that it was -6°F. You have to wait to hear the scientists tell you you are cold before you know you are cold, and only after the question of if it's cold has been peer reviewed before it can officially be deemed that you are cold. And if you hear it reported that scientists declare that you are cold by either Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, then, by definition, you are in fact not cold but hot. Image
 #247565  by JTROANOKE
 February 11th, 2011, 12:26 pm
Bill Putney wrote:
JTROANOKE wrote:I only live 100 miles from Bill. I like beer. Got your back, Bill!
Hah! You live even closer now - we moved to Radford, and I have family in Roanoke that we visit frequently.
I sense a mini meet in the near future. How would you like an all expense paid trip to Roanoke? I am right at 98k now so you know what that means!
User avatar
 #247769  by Bill Putney
 February 12th, 2011, 7:37 pm
I think I'd be up for that, Jim. When the weather wamrs up a bit? What would I need to bring?
 #247800  by JTROANOKE
 February 13th, 2011, 8:31 am
Bill Putney wrote:I think I'd be up for that, Jim. When the weather wamrs up a bit? What would I need to bring?
Agreed on the weather - Looking at last weekend in March at this point. Weather must cooperate as this will be a driveway exercise as my garage is pretty much storage at this point. As far as what to bring - Nothing necessary, as from what I can see this is pretty much a basic hand tool job which I am fairly well equipped with. If you happen to have a balancer puller, that would be great, although I was planning on trying it without removing the balancer. Maybe your backflush rig? And any oddball wrenches for tight quarters that you may have. Crows feet and the like.
This is getting way off topic here, so we should probably continue this convo via PM. I also will need to know your favorite brand of beer and type of steak! :lol:
 #247977  by isrb710
 February 13th, 2011, 11:14 pm
Bill Putney wrote:
isrb710 wrote:...It was -6 Farenheit (actual, NOT wind chill) on my way to work this am...
Now Ron - you are not a meteorologist, much less a climatologist, so you are not qualified to say that it was -6°F. You have to wait to hear the scientists tell you you are cold before you know you are cold, and only after the question of if it's cold has been peer reviewed before it can officially be deemed that you are cold. And if you hear it reported that scientists declare that you are cold by either Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, then, by definition, you are in fact not cold but hot. Image
Thank the Lord for a little GW the last 2 days. My driveway is almost completely ice free for the first time in 5 or 6 weeks!! In the last 3 days, we about doubled the number of days the temp got above freezing over that same time period.

fyi - My M is qualified to tell the temperature! I took the reading right off the EVIC.
User avatar
 #274193  by EasyRider300M
 January 27th, 2012, 2:33 pm
16 Scientists dispute co2 causing global warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/16-scientists-dec ... 55794.html
User avatar
 #274198  by 300maximilien
 January 27th, 2012, 3:25 pm
We will not know who is right until it is too late...

There is so much point / counter-point back and forth it will keep your head spinning for ever!

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 11/18/2011 7:06:27 PM ET
Print Font:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45353104/ns ... yMHzcVADfg
WASHINGTON - Top international climate scientists and disaster experts meeting in Africa have a sharp message for the world's political leaders: Get ready for more dangerous and unpredictable weather caused by global warming.
They're calling for preparations that they say will save lives and money.
The experts fear that without preparedness, crazy weather extremes may overwhelm some locations, making them uninhabitable.
The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a new special report on global warming and extreme weather Friday after meeting in Uganda.
This is the first time the group of scientists has focused on the dangers of extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, droughts and storms.
Those are more dangerous than gradual increases in the world's average temperature.
The Washington Post reported that the report said there was at least a 66 percent chance that climate extremes had been changed because of carbon emissions produced by fossil fuels and other human activity.
Story: Flooded in 60 minutes: NYC tunnel warning
"Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters are increasing," the report said, according to the Post.
"The fact is, a small change in average temperature can have a big impact on extremes," Gerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and one of the report's reviewers, told the paper in an interview. "It's pretty straightforward: As average temperatures go up, it's fairly obvious that heat extremes go up and [the number of] low extremes go down."
In August, the U.S. government said the United States had already tied its yearly record for the number of weather disasters with an economic loss of $1 billion or more .
Story: Fall arrives late in some Southwestern pockets
National Weather Service Director Jack Hayes said at the time that, "I don't think it takes a wizard to predict 2011 is likely to go down as one of the more extreme years for weather in history."
A report by the National Climatic Data Center listed the storms and other weather-related events that had caused more than $1 billion in damage.
Story: Expect major river changes from climate, experts warn
"I've been a meteorologist for 30 years, and I've never seen a year like 2011 in terms of extreme weather events," Jeff Masters, of the Weather Underground website, said in a press call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, according to the Post.
David Friedberg, CEO of Climate Corp., which offers weather insurance for farmers, told the paper that more corn and soybean farmers were paying between $30 and $40 an acre to supplement federal insurance because of the weather's unpredictability.
"What we see is really the acute pain experienced by farmers because they're suffering from more floods and more droughts than they've ever experienced," Friedberg added.
It's not just the big headline grabbing disasters like a Hurricane Katrina or the massive 2010 Russian heat wave that studies show were unlikely to happen without global warming. "A particular pattern of rising risks" from smaller events is being seen, said one of the study's lead authors, Maarten van Aalst, director of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Climate Centre in the Netherlands.
Story: Up to 3 million Afghans face hunger as winter looms
Of all the weather extremes that kill and cause massive damage, he said, the worst is flooding.
There's a debate in the climate science community about whether it is possible and fair to attribute individual climate disasters to manmade global warming. Usually meteorologists say it's impossible to link climate change to a specific storm or drought, but that such extremes are more likely in a future dominated by global warming.
The panel was formed by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization. In the past, it has discussed extreme events in snippets in its report. But this time, the scientists are putting them all together.
User avatar
 #296284  by 300maximilien
 January 4th, 2013, 12:09 am
Well with all the crazy weather in 2012 I figured I would bump this hot topic again.

I just find it amazing that some people just can't see that humans are affecting the climate and that what is happening isn't just cyclical.
User avatar
 #296285  by 300maximilien
 January 4th, 2013, 12:12 am
Damn the first page of these thread is just freakin hilarious!
User avatar
 #296312  by EasyRider300M
 January 4th, 2013, 12:58 pm
300maximilien wrote:Damn the first page of these thread is just freakin hilarious!
I think the whole thread is hilarious :lol
  • 1
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12