This is almost hypnotic. One of the leaders at a Tea Party event with the Citizens of Liberty holds forth on the science of global warming. [Note: there will be no academic credit awarded for this Internet learning exercise].
The site for this organization makes clear that this is about a world socialist agenda:
No, nothing will ever be enough for these extremists. Because it really isn’t about saving the planet in the first place. It’s about pushing a socialist agenda to cripple the capitalist nations of the west. It’s about wealth redistribution and socialist schemes under the guise of environmentalism.
While nothing will ever be enough to straighten out the socialists and other Koolaid drinkers, we have more than enough for the American people to force our government to stop treating us worse than foreign dictators and stop this cap and trade global warming tax nonsense in the Senate.
I had to add this to our library of hard-right science, here.
Slartibartfast I read your resume and it is quite impressive. Could you provide us with the percentages of the green house gases. Specifically what percent does co2 represent in green house gases and what percent co2 represents of the total atmosphere.
Bdaman,
I think that you were also trying to imply a fairly absurd and irrelevant case of correlation implies causation.
That was just an FYI post, I ran accross it while reading and it was just released a couple of days ago.
IS,
I have a BS, an MS, an MA, and a Ph.D., all in mathematics, acquired in 4 years of undergraduate and 10 years of graduate education. I started out as a physics major as an undergrad, so I have a pretty solid foundation in physics, including courses in thermodynamics. Why is it not relevant that greenhouse gasses block the radiation of energy (heat) thus adding to the total energy of the system? Why is it not reasonable that this effect is more important than solar variation in the earth’s climate? And why couldn’t these small changes be the cause of large effects in the frighteningly complex system of the planetary climate?
IS,
O.k. then why would he bring up Bill Clinton?
Slartibartfast:
Must be very interesting work. How many courses did you have to take in thermodynamics to get your degree in Mathematics. At least that is what I assume you to have a degree in.
Gyges:
I dont think bdaman’s point is political anymore than the rest of you on this issue.
Slart,
That he views this as a political issue rather than a scientific one?
bdaman,
Your point?
Who was president when U.S. greenhouse gas emissions rose most sharply since 1990, the U.N. benchmark year for action to fight climate change?
– George W. Bush (2001-2007)
– Bill Clinton (1993-2000)
– George H.W. Bush (1990-1992)
This is a trick question on this site.
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/2009/07/21/is-bill-clintons-climate-legacy-a-problem-for-obama/
Buddah this may be what it is now GLOBAL WARMING: It’s not about hot weather. It’s not about cold weather. It’s about UNSTABLE weather.
Buddah I might be an idiot but I aint no fool. Do you really want me to believe that they named it global WARMING because it’s not about warming. You have bumped your head Buddah. Now that there hasn’t been any warming in the last ten years they want to use the term climate change just like they went from War on Terror to Over Seas Contigency Operation. What a bunch a hooey.
How bout it buddah what amount/percentage of co2 makes up the atmosphere/green house gases. Please tell us how this tiny percent is the killer of all killers responsible for everything thats dying,crying, going extinct, drying up, making places flood, Creating major hurricanes, changing the evolution process and nothing else is ever considered. $$$$$$$$$$ see the post above about BPA
Gary T,
As someone who has been fascinated by the mathematics of chaos since high school, has spent years studying fractal geometry, mixing, ergodic theory, and non-linear dynamics, and currently works doing mathematical models of highly complex systems (I model protein interactions in cells – my models have hundreds of proteins and thousands of reactions and are simple compared to the weather of the planet) I can tell you that Buddha is entirely correct on this one. You are adding more heat to the system (via greenhouse gasses) and while this amount is small compared to the total energy of the system, the complexity allows small changes to have large effects which can potentially destabilize the climate – this results in record temperatures (high and low) as the energy flows become stronger and more unstable.
bdaman,
The sun came out here and it’s warming up, maybe I was too hasty earlier.
Man, you sleep in and you miss 50,000 posts…
bdaman,
It’s a little cooler here at the lake than I’d like, obviously global climate change is a myth.
Gary T,
You reversed my question and asked what would it take for me to believe that global climate change was a myth (I notice that you didn’t answer the question yourself) – if most of the peer-reviewed scientific publications gave evidence in opposition to GCC and the relevant professional organizations put out statements saying man was not involved in GCC (or it wasn’t happening), then I would have to seriously re-evaluate my views at a minimum. What about you?
Gary T:
bdaman did not say that, Buddha is Laughing did in a post up above. I thought Buddha must be joking but apparently not.
Buddha:
Your last post is illustrative and definitive.
That is good, so that I know where you stand on what global warming means.
I thought that global warming meant that the weather of the globe was warming, but I now understand you understand it to mean unstable weather. Ok, I can live with that – I don’t agree with it, but I understand it.
In regard to your previous posts back to mine and others, I just want to say, complexity theory does not ever trump the conservation of energy. No matter what butterfly effect may be in play, it all must be within the limiting parameters of energy conservation; complexity theory cannot be an excuse or appeal to mysticism.
I say this because in replying to my post about modern greenhouse effect theory and the question of how the atmosphere/surface is warmed by the Sun, you assert a sweeping dismissal of the whole question by effectively saying “It’s all about complexity theory, look it up”, without even addressing the physics of the conservation of energy involved.
My point which you addressed tangentially, was that global warming theory requires the Earth to have an absorption rate that does not match the emissivity rate. Your very commentary supports your belief in that matter.
This however is simply an energy conservation violation.
If you believe in that, then you are right, we need not continue discussing this topic.
Bdaman:
I must say that your statement:
“Worrying about the sun when looking at global warming is about as productive as worrying about termite mound in North Africa when looking at mosquitoes in Canada.”
Is a bit off. Global warming is exclusively a Sun based phenomena, it s the whole thing that drives our weather, warming, cooling, unpredictable, whatever.
I am pretty sure you didn’t mean that the way it sounds.
Simplest form possible, then I’m done with the filling the gaps in your education.
GLOBAL WARMING: It’s not about hot weather. It’s not about cold weather. It’s about UNSTABLE weather.
If that’s too complicated, I suggest taking up topics less challenging than science. Like which play-doh tastes best with kool-aid.
BDAman,
I forgot to mention, if you think that scientists haven’t taken into account the errors in work done 10-15 years ago, and revised their theories, then you don’t understand how science works.
Science is self correcting, theories change and adapt to the evidence over time. That’s actually a big part of what makes something a scientific theory as opposed to just a theory.
You can’t disprove a current theory by saying that the original incarnation missed the mark. The differences between the two theories are there as a direct result of the original’s failings, they are corrections.
Gary,
Actually I said that BDAman tends not to defend his ideas when confronted with evidence to the contrary. I also went on to say (implicitly) that he wasn’t a skeptic, just a denier.
BDaman,
You’re rapid fire way of making claims makes it next to impossible to answer them all. It’s a well known dirty trick when it comes to debate. Let me point out that Buddha HAS, at least indirectly, answered your question.
“Look into complexity. As you add more of any component to a system you increase instability.”
bdaman:
good info. you are a breath of life giving CO2!
Buddah If you can’t make that simple distinction, then evidence suggests I’m talking to either a moron in the science department or someone prone to delusional corporate propaganda that suits their fascist interests in profit over all of human life.
Lets talk about delusional corporate propaganda that suits their fascist interests in profit over all of human life.
Are you familiar with the chemical compound BPA. Last month, the Statistical Assessment Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization affiliated with George Mason University, released a study called Science Suppressed. How America became obsessed with BPA. A report which accuses the media “of ignoring the extensive research of respected scientists and major health agencies in the United States and around the world, which found BPA was not only safe but played an important role in ensuring food safety.” It also confirms what countless previous studies have said, BPA is safe. And as recently as July 15 of this year, a regulatory board in the state of California, composed of seven physicians, unanimously voted that “BPA should not be covered under Proposition 65, a voter-approved measure used by regulators to identify substances that can cause birth defects, developmental or reproductive harm. The latest research by Health Canada said that you would have to drink 1000 liters of bottled water a day in order to approach the amount they deem to be the tolerable daily intake for the chemical BPA. Despite countless studies demonstrating that BPA is safe, reporters, environmentalists, and liberal politicians continue to make hay out of this political issue. Until recently, this appeared to be nothing more than a typical attempt by liberals to go after business and manufacturing. You see, the radical environmental groups who fundraise off of this issue, the trial lawyers who line their pockets with class action lawsuits against BPA manufacturers, and the Democratic politicians who score political points by attacking BPA all have one thing in common. They all share the same PR guru David Fenton. If the name David Fenton of Fenton Communications sounds familiar, it may be because he’s the guy who invented the ‘General Betray Us’ ad campaign that MoveOn.org used to attack General Petreaus.
Putting aside the fact that the claims were entirely bogus, the fear campaign against BPA was a brilliant business move for Fenton and a win for liberals. David Fenton, of course, is a liberal activist. He represents many radical environmental groups like the San Francisco-based Tides Foundation, who could benefit from creating a bogey man. And he also represents trial lawyers, who could make millions by bringing about class action lawsuits against the manufacturers of plastics. Lastly, trial lawyers are major donors to Democratic politicians, so getting them on board was easy. And plastics competitors who didn’t use BPA could now charge absurd prices for their products at upscale stores based on the fact that their product (though more expensive) was safer. I suggest that MR. Gore’s campaign to control Co2 is on par with this scheme against BPA.
pardon me:
actually most of those slides were from 3rd world countries and they are victims of socialist dictators.
They are not victims of comfort they are victims of stupidity and tyranny.