Comments on: IT’S STILL A GOOD IDEA TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS

By: Edward Cherlin

Edward Cherlin — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:42:52 +0000

I’m recommending this post to a group of educators wrestling with ways to teach controversial topics. It is quite rare to find someone not 100% on one side or the other about the facts. Everybody likes to quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan saying “Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts,” without appreciating how hard it is to settle what the facts are. That’s why we distinguish between the trier of facts (the jury) and the trier of law (the judge) in court. It is also why we have such elaborate procedures to keep bias out of juries, because bias is well known to distort the perception of facts.

If you would be interested in joining our discussion about how to teach controversies, and how children should learn to tell fact from fiction, e-mail me privately.

By: SB Smith

SB Smith — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:20:17 +0000

I started recycling in the early 90’s and doing a few other earth friendly things…..and it was fun then.
I still hate wasting water (we have well water) and I still try not to use so much plastic….and still do the other things…

But the Goracle came along and made being earth friendly a whacked-out pyscho thing to do.

Now I almost hate using (in public) or buying anything earth friendly because I don’t want anyone thinking I’m one of THOSE people.

As for what I drive…I will let go of my large SUV when they pry my cold dead fingers from around the steering wheel.
Heh heh…well, you get the message.

By: cranston

cranston — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:15:11 +0000

‘What’s different today is that the oceans are acting like a carbon sink, absorbing up to 70% of man made emissions’

That IS different!

So just when did the laws of physics and chemistry change?

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:00:15 +0000

Mark you are correct. But the larger problem here is that any raw data or research that “might” truthfully show something we should be concerned about will be disavowed.

These so-called scientists have ruined the reputations of researchers who aren’t even involved in this fiasco and are doing honest work in a range of noteworthy fields. This is the equivalent to the decline of trust in the government that followed the 50’s. There have been several good leaders and pols since then but they were guilty by association because of their corrupt counterparts.

We have to be careful, and I mean CAREFUL, how we cast our judgments on future research. This does not mean being blindly faithful as we have been in the past. Just more informed on the processes of peer review and scientific transparency. We do not want to overlook something detrimental or even advantageous to our society because of mistrust.

By: mark

mark — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 16:09:50 +0000

Here we go again. Stringing facts that may or may not be related to pre-determined conclusions.

a. C02 is rising, mankind emits C02, therefore mankind must be causing the C02 rise.
b. If mankind does it, it must be bad, therefore C02
rising is bad.

Must look for something “bad” and tie it to C02 so that it can be blamed on mankind. So:

c. Algea and plankton growth “might” be slowing in the ocean, the ocean has been absorbing “man’s” C02, therefore man is killing the ocean and must mend his evil ways or “GAIA SPANK”. Never mind that algea are photosynthetic plants which live on what? C02.

My primary point is that everyone needs to remember a simple statistical statement. Repeat after me:

CORRELATION DOES NOT PROVE CAUSATION.

Now back to your regular programming.

Jesus. If you set up any more strawmen to argue with you could put on a dozen productions of the Wizard of Oz.

I loaded that info on CO2 with as many caveats as I could because I knew some close minded denier like you would come along and totally misconstrue what I was saying. In fact, the “correlation does not prove causation’ idea permeates my entire post - it is unfortunate you have a problem with reading comprehension.

That, and your efforts to lump me in with the warmists by ignoring what I wrote about what could be done about reducing emissions intelligently shows that you are not interested in anything except your own narrow, ideological view of the question. Your mind is not open and therefore I lump you with the anti-science ignoramuses like Al Gore who think the “science is settled.”

Nice company you’re keeping there, pardner.

ed.

By: ericoflocke

ericoflocke — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 06:28:05 +0000

The pre-industrial measurements based upon ice cores are flawed. As ice freezes, the CO2 content is reduced as the gas is sqweezed out of the liquid. Artice ice freezes and thaws several time over the centuries. An old icce core does not privide a good base line measurment.

By: Mike

Mike — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:41:21 +0000

Well Rickster, you might be on to something. I came across an interesting little sight provided by NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration) which specifically measures the CO2 release and uptake at the Earth’s surface.

But you better be careful which drum you are beating. If there is any credibility to what you are claiming this is just another avenue for the “warmers” to latch on to and pass overreaching draconian legislation.The problem with good science is it can be distorted by bad intentions.

Here is the link for those interested.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/

By: Jack

Jack — Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:39:30 +0000

I agree that we need to cut down on CO2. Let’s start with those pesky volcanoes.

By: funny man

funny man — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 23:25:44 +0000

The problem is, it is indeed difficult to have a rational discussion about this problem. Everyone here seems to know what good and junk science is but the problem is you don’t. Hume once said many people wouldn’t have a problem to accept the most unlikely thing from happening e.g. the virgin Mary appearing (aliens or what not) but if you told them you went hiking in a forest and a bear joined you and kept walking with you until the end of the forest, they would immediately dismiss that even though that is by far more likely.
So now it has to be crazy liberals conspiring to kill American industry versus anti-science religious zealots on the right protecting big industry. Or something like that. Talk is cheap but at the end of the day we, the people, have to get together to solve many environmental problems. That fact doesn’t need any big theories to be true. Just one example, water in the Southwest. Or another, getting away from foreign dependency on oil.
There are a lot of things that you might question about FDRs policies and their effectiveness. However, maybe I’m a bit romantic regarding the CCC program but I like the idea of Americans of all stripes getting out there and making our country better. and BTW I’m not going to wait until all the crazies on both sides are convinced.

By: cedarhill

cedarhill — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:56:07 +0000

Anyone that might have a casual interest in science should read this the “Falsification Of
The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics” by actual scientists. It’s only 115 pages including 30 pages of references, tables, etc. You can google it or download it at

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

Anyone that claims CO2 has any significant effect on global warming, global cooling, ice ages or is a pollutant is just simple ignorant. Those (including pundits) that don’t bother doing the research are just parodies of junk science.

But then, we do live in the era of vast intellectual ignorance.

I do not believe CO2 has an effect on any of those things you mentioned - something you would know if YOU READ THE FUCKING POST!

I note that you didn’t mention increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or oceans - which means you either deliberately ignored those facts or the words were too difficult for you to comprehend. You appear to be another of those “the science is settled” jerks. Join your buddy Al Gore and wallow in your own ignorance.

ed.