[jhowelb]

Got to laugh at the irony of that quote....since Al Gore has essentially concocted the whole AGW scare, and miraculously, he has the cure; Carbon Credits.

That's the secret of a good snake oil salesman..create a disease, and sell the cure.

Thank you!
Only I think as a group they (libs) dream up the cure then go searching for the ailment!!

[fizzissist]

If you're worried about the coming ice age, google Stanford's Stephan Schneider. He was sounding the alarm back then, and is sounding the alarm now about AGW.

This is the ilk that we're dealing with, the scientists who earn their living by alarmism, and in Schneider's case, he even admits it!

This guy goes so far as to say it's ok to exagerate claims to scare people.

That ain't science, it's P.T. Barnum.

[xyzdonna]

If you're worried about the coming ice age, google Stanford's Stephan Schneider. He was sounding the alarm back then, and is sounding the alarm now about AGW.

This is the ilk that we're dealing with, the scientists who earn their living by alarmism, and in Schneider's case, he even admits it!

This guy goes so far as to say it's ok to exagerate claims to scare people.

That ain't science, it's P.T. Barnum.

Hi fizzissist,
I did as you suggested and googled Stanford's Stephan Schneider. Poor guy, the press has really frazzeled him. He admits to the uncertainties of climate change while attesting to the certainty of being quoted out of context.

Quote: Despite many attempts on my part — in my books, papers, talks, and other op-eds — to outline my opinions and dispel the media-propagated myths, the distortions continue to this day, even in "respectable" publications like the Economist, which ran a partial quote (also taken from the Discover article) without even calling me to see if it was valid. (See the quote from the Economist. The 'brave' editor of this attack does not even sign his polemic, but I am told it was Clive Crook.) The most egregious distortion I am aware of was in a 1996 opinion piece by Julian Simon (see also my rebuttal), a business professor at the University of Maryland, in which he not only used an out-of-context quote from the Discover article to "prove" that I advocate exaggeration in order to get attention, but he also invented a preamble, that I advise people to “stretch the truth,” and he attributed that to me, while (of course) leaving off the last sentence of my actual remark.

Me: Here is the quote from the Discover magazine article:

Stephan Schneider: Here is the published quote from that interview with Discover, from which selected lines have been used for over a decade as "proof" that I exaggerate environmental threats:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...calBindPitfall

Me: If you read the whole article the guy is really sincere about trying to get the truth out. He just says that the media demands that he be lumped into one corner or the other. He has to couch his quotes so as to cater to the kind of reporting that is being done. The media doesn't like ambiguities.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[fizzissist]

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

What part of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" don't you understand??? The right balance between being honest and EFFECTIVE????

Not taken out of context, not misquoted. He draws a difference between honesty...and effectiveness. Clearly stating that you aren't effective when you're honest, meaning that he KNOWS he's lying.

[I]Stephen Schneider - Criticism
In 2002, Schneider was criticized by the Danish Space Research Institute in which they claim Schneider misrespresented their work in his criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist; they state "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism."

(edited for correction)

[xyzdonna]

What part of "we have to offer up scary scenarios" don't you understand??? The right balance between being honest and EFFECTIVE????

Not taken out of context, not misquoted. He draws a difference between honesty...and effectiveness. Clearly stating that you aren't effective when you're honest, meaning that he KNOWS he's lying.

[I]Stephen Schneider - Criticism
In 2002, Schneider was criticized by the Danish Space Research Institute in which they claim Schneider misrespresented their work in his criticism of Bjørn Lomborg's book The Skeptical Environmentalist; they state "It is ironic that Stephen Schneider accuses Lomborg for not reading the original literature, when in his own arguments he becomes liable to similar criticism."

(edited for correction)

Hi fizzissist,
The news media is really in the entertainment business. They are looking for 30 second sound bites. They don't want a lot of scientific folderol laced with disclaimers. They want incisive, insightful comments that come to conclusions. He is saying that to get your message out there you must comply with these conditions. Format your comments so that they are easily assimilated by the average couch potato. The trick is to do this in such a way as to retain your honesty.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

Hi everybody;
To quote from his website:
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu...eFrameset.html

Citizens must demand that scientists provide honest, credible assessments that answer the "three questions of environmental literacy": 1) What can happen?; 2) What are the odds of it happening?; and 3) How are such estimates made? Citizens must also achieve a certain level of environmental, political, and scientific literacy themselves so that they feel comfortable distinguishing climate change fact from fiction and making critical value judgments and policy decisions, in essence becoming "citizen scientists". Just as popularization of potential probabilities and consequences will occur with or without input from scientists, policy decisions will be made with or without input from an informed citizenry. I hope that citizens will take responsibility for increasing their scientific, political, and environmental literacy and recognize the importance of the positive effect that an informed public will have on the policy process.

Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.

Take care,
xyzdonna

[Rekd]

:sigh:

I saw a big sticker on the back of a truck many years ago, *cough*ClintonYears*cough*. Took up the whole tailgate, and rightfully so. It read: "-NameRemoved-: Like a turd that won't flush"

[fizzissist]

[QUOTE=xyzdonna;433812
Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.
[/QUOTE]

That doesn't mean that what he says isn't deceptive. Likewise, you'll never hear Gore say that he wants anyone to say anything deceptive or that he himself would ever say anything deceptive....after all, that would be undermining his own credibility.

The VERY last thing Gore wants is for people to actually read the real science for themselves. Read only what you are spoonfed by them. Via the mainstream media of course.

Anyone see the 60Minutes piece Sunday night and notice that the VERY first tidbit proving "gorebull" warming is the schtick about Kilamanjaro??

Anyone need to be educated as to why that argument (Kilamanjaro is proof of global warming) has long since been blown out of the water?? What it is proof of is that the AGW group is still trying to sell something that is known to be BS.

Not to mention Gore's riding in the limo, heading for the black SUV, flying to India...can you say hypocrisy?? But back to Schneider....He and James Hansen and Michael Mann are all in the same boat.

[jhowelb]

Manufactured shortages for political purpose!!

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/dis...6/08/18/ndoil/

North Dakota oil patch is booming
by Dan Gunderson, Minnesota Public Radio
August 28, 2006


There's an oil boom in western North Dakota. Oil companies large and small are investing millions of dollars in new wells. The North Dakota oil industry has boomed and busted many times in the past 50 years. But some believe new technology and high oil prices will bring long term stability to the North Dakota oil patch.

Western North Dakota has large oil reserves. By some estimates, it has more oil than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. A federal government geologist estimated a formation called the Bakken shale holds 400 billion barrels of oil.

https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/

Welcome to the North Dakota Industrial Commission, Department of Mineral Resources, Oil and Gas Division, home page.

http://www.kxmb.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=157178

You may be wondering why are we experiencing a gasoline shortage when oil production is peaking in North Dakota...

The shortage isn't with oil the bottleneck is in the refining process.

[xyzdonna]

Manufactured shortages for political purpose!!

Hi jhowelb;
I think you're right, there is no oil shortage if the price is right. As long as oil stays at the price it is now (over $100/barrel) then there will be plenty of oil that will be economical to extract. Of course you have to consider that it will also be economical to produce biofuels at these prices as well. The advantage is that they are more carbon neutral.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[xyzdonna]

That doesn't mean that what he says isn't deceptive. Likewise, you'll never hear Gore say that he wants anyone to say anything deceptive or that he himself would ever say anything deceptive....after all, that would be undermining his own credibility.

The VERY last thing Gore wants is for people to actually read the real science for themselves. Read only what you are spoonfed by them. Via the mainstream media of course.

Anyone see the 60Minutes piece Sunday night and notice that the VERY first tidbit proving "gorebull" warming is the schtick about Kilamanjaro??

Anyone need to be educated as to why that argument (Kilamanjaro is proof of global warming) has long since been blown out of the water?? What it is proof of is that the AGW group is still trying to sell something that is known to be BS.

Not to mention Gore's riding in the limo, heading for the black SUV, flying to India...can you say hypocrisy?? But back to Schneider....He and James Hansen and Michael Mann are all in the same boat.

Hi fizzissist;
Yes, actually I need to be educated about Kilimanjaro. What's the deal on that?
Thanks,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

Hi jhowelb;
I think you're right, there is no oil shortage if the price is right. As long as oil stays at the price it is now (over $100/barrel) then there will be plenty of oil that will be economical to extract. Of course you have to consider that it will also be economical to produce biofuels at these prices as well. The advantage is that they are more carbon neutral.
Take care,
xyzdonna

ARTIFICIALLY inflated prices in order to extract money (and tax) for ulterior motives. (phony green concerns about the enVIRONment, the CARAbo, the SPOTTED owel, ANwar or some other Gorebullsht!)

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Do some more research, bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment

[xyzdonna]

ARTIFICIALLY inflated prices in order to extract money (and tax) for ulterior motives. (phony green concerns about the enVIRONment, the CARAbo, the SPOTTED owel, ANwar or some other Gorebullsht!)

There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Do some more research, bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment

Hi jhowelb;
Quote: "bio-fuels are more carbon intensive and destructive to the environment"

Me: Perhaps it depends on which bio-fuels you are considering. Ethanol from corn, I would agree. Not to mention what it's doing to our cost of food. Biodiesel from algae, I think not. This process takes CO2 out of the environment to produce the oil for diesel fuel.

Quote: There is no shortage of energy, just a shortage of brains! We don't need alternate energy, just fewer environmentalist nutcases!!

Me: Well, as one of the "environmentalist nut cases", of course I have to disagree. We must reach a homeostasis with our environment. Anything else is suicidal. Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. All the bad things Geof spoke about are going to happen. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives. Also, that we survive in an enhanced (evolved) form. The coming decades will be traumatic. Let us hope they will portend a new order of things. An order of sanity, reason and logic, as opposed to capricious and contentious superstition and religion.
Take care,
xyzdonna

[jhowelb]

Me: Well, as one of the "environmentalist nut cases", of course I have to disagree. We must reach a homeostasis with our environment. Anything else is suicidal. Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. All the bad things Geof spoke about are going to happen. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives. Also, that we survive in an enhanced (evolved) form. The coming decades will be traumatic. Let us hope they will portend a new order of things. An order of sanity, reason and logic, as opposed to capricious and contentious superstition and religion.
Take care,
xyzdonna

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Overpopulation and sustainability are your personal and unqualified, unquantified baseless opinions, NOT fact!

Who promoted you to the rank of paragon and director of human fate?

Capricious and contentious superstition and religion are the exact terms to describe the brand if Liberalism that guides your life without the benefit of a recognized God! (Little Church of fallen, clueless, Godless keepers of the Flames of Illumination.)

[Rekd]

Here is where you really begin to sound nutty with an order of arrogance and ignorance of monumental proportions.

Actually, that started a long time ago. What I'm seeing now is simply annoying. It's like she's obsessed with herself. I suppose the

Quote: blah blah blah

Me: blah blah blah

Quote: blah blah blah

Me: blah blah blah!

...while it makes me want to puke, could be worse if she were to use colors to represent different personalities.


Seriously, why won't this thing flush!!!???

[dynosor]

Obviously the planet is grossly overpopulated, this is unsustainable. It is our duty, as the paragon of our species, to try and direct the outcome so that humanity survives.

I wonder when some nut-job is going to use this reasoning in his defense for randomly killing a bunch of people that got in his way? If the Twinkie defense can stand, why not "I did it to save the planet from overpopulation"?

[jhowelb]

Actually, that started a long time ago. What I'm seeing now is simply annoying. It's like she's obsessed with herself. I suppose the



...while it makes me want to puke, could be worse if she were to use colors to represent different personalities.


Seriously, why won't this thing flush!!!???

She, and Liberals in general, are obsessed with themselves and their desire to "save the world, civilization, the motorist, the poor, the minorities" from themselves and certain destruction brought on by dis regard of the Liberal "god-of-the-moment" (environmentalism, climate change, seat belts, motorcycle helmets, welfare, racial set asides and quotas and affirmative action).

They are not to be questioned on the effectiveness, justice or unintended consequences of these thing but rather should be judged by the purity of their intentions.

They will never acknowledge the negative side of the ledger ( all the carbon and money needed to manufacture raw materials) and insist that there is a zero sum gain. This would allow them to tax the economy into prosperity just as Stalin did!

This is the insanity that says that because of high fuel prices we will punish the oil companies with ever higher taxes, restriction on refinery facilities, exploration and recovery operations and expect then that the price of gas will go down.

But at the same time if the price of paint goes up THAT will be passed on to the customer of the sign shop!

THEY are the ones responsible for the outrageous prices but we are supposed to believe that THEY also have the answer by imposing further restrictions!

"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill

“You cannot solve a problem with the same mind that created it.”
Albert Einstein

[fizzissist]

Kilimanjaro....a beginner's primer

Kilimanjaro is a volcano. There is evidence that it is not a dead volcano, but a DORMANT volcano....that means there's still magma. That magma is believed to be within 400meters of the upper surface where the glaciers lie.
Magma=heat, heat+glacier=....receeding glacier???

Observed glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro was more rapid in the first half of the 20th century than the second half. In fact, the rate of recession of both slope and shelf glaciers has taken two distinct reductions of decline since 1950. That is contrary to the theory of atmospheric warming as a cause. (apologies to Lonnie Thompson)

What does appear to be the major cause of Kilimanjaro's glacial loss is the reduction in precipitation. Something on the order of 25% of the ice loss is countered by new snow, and most of the ice loss is to sublimation, not temperature related melting.

Why the reduction in snow (or rain, for that matter)? The single most obvious answer is a change is land use, not a slight increase in atmospheric temps. Farmers have cleared huge tracts of land, resulting in less humid upwelling, directly effecting a reduction in precipitation.

Precip on Kilimanjaro is also dependent on Indian Ocean and south Atlantic Ocean cycles...SST anomalies, El Nino, etc.....all things that are subject to normal variability.

Mt. Kenya in 1961 had in November 1961, for example, precipitation on the footslopes of Mt. Kenya that exceeded 275% of normal as a result of onshore flow from a large area of anomalously warm SSTs in the western Indian Ocean. There was also dense cloud cover for the period with greatly reduced evaporation. Gorebull warming proof?
I think not.

1961 was during the period of time when we were getting prepped for the coming ice age...we just hadn't been warned yet by....Stephen Schneider

There isn't a carbon credit in this universe that will restore Kilimanjaro's glaciers.

--previously posted:
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/kaser2004.pdf

--yes...another edit....couldn't help myself and had to post this link to the U.K. lawsuit that rips up Gore's AIT movie...
5. 'Error' 14: The snows of Kilimanjaro.

Mr Gore asserts in scene 7 that the disappearance of snow on Mt Kilimanjaro is expressly attributable to global warming. It is noteworthy that this is a point that specifically impressed Mr Milliband (see the press release quoted at paragraph 6 above). However, it is common ground that, the scientific consensus is that it cannot be established that the recession of snows on Mt Kilimanjaro is mainly attributable to human-induced climate change.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/...2007/2288.html

[Rekd]

I wonder when some nut-job is going to use this reasoning in his defense for randomly killing a bunch of people that got in his way? If the Twinkie defense can stand, why not "I did it to save the planet from overpopulation"?

Agreed. Perhaps some will use it as a reason to /self??

[Mariss Freimanis]

Hi everybody;

Me: Nothing I've read on Stephen Schneider's website advocates deception.

Take care,
xyzdonna

XYZ,

Deception also includes what is omitted. I took a quick look and there is a obvious sleigh-of-hand on Schneider's website. The dreaded hockey-stick graphs have a 1,000 AD to 2,000 AD timescale. The temperature graph has a 1,900 AD to 2,100 AD timescale to include the usual hysterical extrapolations 100 years into the future.

What's missing is 900 years from the temperature timescale. Why didn't it also run from 1,000 AD? Perhaps to remove an inconvenient and very large drop in world temperatures that began around 1,200 AD and persists to the present day? Leaving it in would have kicked the props out from under the correlation he is trying to make between greenhouse gases and temperature.

Seems a little deceptive to me.

Mariss