GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real; man contributes
I guess it’s true; New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie really isn’t running for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012:
“In the past I’ve always said that climate change is real and it’s impacting our state,” he said in a press conference yesterday (video below). “There’s undeniable data that CO2 levels and other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere are increasing. Decade average temperatures have been rising and temperature changes are affecting weather patterns and our climate.”
OK, so climate change is occurring. But is mankind to blame? To get an answer to that crucial question, Christie says, he has been meeting with experts and scientists for the last few months to discuss the issue in depth, and has also done considerable reading and study on his own.
His conclusion:
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”
In his statement Thursday, Christie also announced that New Jersey would not participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a joint effort by 10 Northeastern states to address the issue of greenhouse gases at the regional level through a cap-and-trade program. His decision to withdraw from RGGI makes a lot of sense for purely practical reasons, and was clearly reached through the same analytical process that brought him to the conclusion that climate change is real and mankind is contributing.
As Christie notes, the rights to emit a ton of greenhouse gases through RGGI were projected to cost as much as $20 to $30 a ton, a level that would create a significant economic incentive to reduce those emissions. Under RGGI, however, those rights are selling at less than $2 a ton.
“RGGI has not changed behavior and it does not reduce emissions,” Christie said. “We’re looking for broader results that benefit all ratepayers and all citizens.”
Christie went on to pledge that in light of the seriousness of the problem, “there will no new coal permitted in New Jersey. From this day forward, any plans that anyone has regarding any type of coal-based generation of energy is over…. We need to commit in New Jersey to making coal a part of our past.”
Instead, the state will begin to shutdown older coal plants and move toward offshore wind generation, using old landfill sites as solar energy fields and concentrating on conservation and efficiency because “the cleanest energy is the energy you don’t use.”
As promised, here’s Christie’s statement in full (and I do confess to thinking while watching it that no major political figure in Georgia would be capable of such a performance.):
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
377 comments Add your comment
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:30 pm
Finn — “Muslims pray like they know a bomb is about to go off somewhere.”
Hee.
My wife’s boss drives crazy, fast and aggressive. So my wife tells her “you drive like you’re saved and you know it.” Wife’s Southern Baptist boss grins and basks in the glow.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
1:33 pm
“heathen @12:51, the same arguments were used by those opposed to the railroads in the 1830s…”
Wasn’t saying it in opposition. Just saying don’t count on green jobs for salvation unless you are willing to fix the other reasons all the jobs have left the USA.
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
1:34 pm
“When you have over 90 percent of the world’s scientists who have studied this stating that climate change is occurring and humans play a contributing role, it’s time to defer to the experts…. we know enough to know that we are at least a part of the problem.”- Jay
Um. Yes. Most scientists agree the climate is in a gradual warming trend. Some agree that man is at least part of the problem. After this is where the Dems begin their lying campaign. Most of those same scientists also believe that man’s role in global warming is not the chief culprit- that most of the problem is naturally occurring. Yet there are people out there foolish enough to believe that in a geologic millisecond that running some cars can dramatically alter the Earth’s atmosphere.
What people on here need to keep in mind is that scientists are like everyone else. They have their own agendas- such as obtaining funds and grants for studying this ahem- problem or perceived problem.
Kinda funny that people are all up in arms about global temps possibly rising 1 stinking degree overall when we have temperature variations every 6 months of 80-90 degrees from the teens at the height of winter to the upper 90s just here in Georgia. Too funny and much ado about nothing.
But lets go ahead and shut down our cars and walk to work. Think China, India,and the rest of the world- especially the developing world- will follow suit? If ya’ll libs believe that then please pick me up one of them chocolaty unicorns when you return from fantasy land.
mm
May 27th, 2011
1:40 pm
Jay,
You could start an ostrich farm with all these head in the sand whiners on this blog.
Run, Sarah, run!
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:41 pm
Doom — “What people on here need to keep in mind is that scientists are like everyone else. They have their own agendas- such as obtaining funds and grants for studying this ahem- problem or perceived problem.”
What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?
My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:43 pm
Joe, I also find this vast left wing conspiracy a real hoot.
Let’ see if I understand it correctly.
Dozens and dozens and dozens of the world’s most prestigious scientific organizationa with longstanding track records of scientific excellence and discovery have all decided suddenly and en masse to shiite the bed and ruin their generally impeccable reputations over AGW?
It makes absolutely NO sense to me.
And where, pray tell, is the first scintilla of evidence to bolster this bizarre claim that the motivation is for a few pieces of silver?
You know, the smoking gun in the form of worldwide, ice cold mushroom cloud?
LOL…
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:45 pm
And of course Doom doesn’t post a link to his “evidence.” (eyeroll)
Usually, when people don’t do that, it turns out that they’re afraid of holes being poked in their “proof.”
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
1:46 pm
Definitive Proof: Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory
Survey of peer reviewed studies reveals less than 50% of published scientists believe global warming is man made. More skeptics than advocates among scientific community while IPCC claim majority endorse the theory.
A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.
In direct conflict with assertions by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a scientific consensus agrees it is 90% likely that man is responsible for warming, Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s survey contends that only 45% support the theory and that is only if you include papers that merely lean towards endorsement.
Though the survey has not yet been released, the results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, and science blog DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy which states:
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”
The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the “primary” cause of warming, but it doesn’t require any belief or support for “catastrophic” global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.
Man made warming proponents have often pointed to a similar survey that was conducted by history professor Naomi Oreskes on peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003 which found that a majority of scientists supported the theory.
Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte sought to update the research and according to DailyTech, used the same database and search terms as Oreskes but reached a radically different conclusion.
The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.
Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.
By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world and is not directly influenced by any governmental body.
Schulte’s survey confirms the claim that the climate change momentum has shifted among prominent scientists who are now benefiting from a greater depth of research. A spate of new research papers has significantly chilled fears of global warming.
The new survey provides undeniable proof that the world is being sold a lie on climate change by a group of politicians and elite lobbyists who wish to seize on the opportunity to hype the global warming threat and use it as a means of social manipulation for political and corporate gain.
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
“What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?”
Uh oh! Watch out Tulsa. Joe finally left me alone after I put him in his place and shut him up @ 1:14. Now he’s moved on to you.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
1:49 pm
@@: You’ve got your Morganza Spillway…screw everyone else, right?
GOALPOST MOVEMENT ALERT
Folks upstream (Missouri and Illinois) would say New Orleanians shouldn’t have built below sea level…they chose to live in a bowl?
For the record, 1) it wasn’t like that when they first started building. And most of New Orleans proper isn’t actually under sea level. 2) Everywhere you live has some sort of risk, and not everyone has the “choice” to live where they live.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
May 27th, 2011
1:49 pm
Well, while you all are arguing about greenhouse gases I see the cops shot and killed the Grandma Bandit three times. What a shame!
I don’t know whether to condemn her for robbing drug stores or put her up for a medal for Private Innerprize. I mean, you got to like the spunk of a old person that won’t set around on SS and the public dole and decides to start a business on her own. Unlike the rest of the coots that want to sponge off of our taxes.
Have a good p.m. everybody.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:51 pm
Octodawg — “Uh oh! Watch out Tulsa. Joe finally left me alone”
Joe will *never* leave you alone.
“after I put him in his place”
By responding to Joe’s requests for evidence, which you had heretofore petulantly refused to do.
“and shut him up @ 1:14.”
How silent do I appear now?
“Now he’s moved on to you.”
Nope. Doom’s *always* on the menu.
Octodawg — “LOL, fine. I’ll do the google search for you”
A Google search is not evidence. Present YOUR evidence. The evidence that YOU have personally found persuasive. A Google search is no more evidence than is a stack of Encyclopedia Britannica volumes.
“There you go. Pick any link on the first page. What more you like?? You asked for proof of climate change and I provided the link(s).
You’ve provided no links to evidence that YOU personally find persuasive. What are you, eleven years old?
Please present specific links to evidence that supports your position and which you personally find persuasive.
USMC
May 27th, 2011
1:51 pm
“GOP’s Chris Christie: Climate change real; man contributes”–Jay Bookman
I thought it was GLOBAL WARMING?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
1:51 pm
Peadawg: I haven’t seen any facts pertaining to how much man contributes to climate change…just guestimates and whatnot. Please provide some facts and I’ll be more than happy to read them.
Following up md’s deliberate density in order to discuss the issue as though the topic of EXACTLY HOW MUCH???? actually matters is NOT convincing anyone that climate change isn’t real. Well, it’s not convincing anyone who didn’t already BELIEVE that it isn’t real.
See, the real argument is thus:
- People who think climate change is real think so because either a) they are a scientist who has studied the issue and come to the conclusion on a scientific basis or b) trust the grand majority of scientists on the issue
- People who don’t think climate change exists, or who deny man’s involvement in any small capacity, have this out of a sense of BELIEF, not science.
Science shows that climate change is real, and that man is contributing. You don’t NEED an exact number of HOW MUCH. You only need to know that we need to reduce our part in the problem. Then you can approach a reasonable solution if you really sit down and think about it, instead of doing some sort of “well your idea sucks, so we won’t do anything!”
mm
May 27th, 2011
1:53 pm
Post a link Doom. Or are you afraid to admit it is a rightwing viral email?
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
1:55 pm
USMC -”I thought it was GLOBAL WARMING?”
Well I guess you thought wrong. Judging by your usual posts, you should be used to it by now.
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
1:58 pm
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
1:41 pm
Doom — “What people on here need to keep in mind is that scientists are like everyone else. They have their own agendas- such as obtaining funds and grants for studying this ahem- problem or perceived problem.”
What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?
Joe Mama, I believe I will simply defer to the scientists. And by that I don’t mean the IPCC report which as the article points out was written by politicians with minimal input from scientists. I suggest that you also defer to the scientists.
My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.- Joe Mama
Joe Mama, Can you please point out to me where in my statement I claimed to be a scientist? If you can prove I made such claim I will send you $1,000.
My recollection is that you also are also not a scientist at all. But of course I’m not claiming that you are a scientist to begin with. If I am mistaken and you are perhaps a climate scientist then I apologize in advance. You may go ahead and paste your peer reviewed papers on climate change. I patiently await your scientific paper if you just happen to be a climate scientist.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
1:59 pm
I thought it was GLOBAL WARMING?
USMC, wake up and catch up!
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
10:26 am
“Man-Made Global Warming or Man-Made Climate Change?”
Please, please, please, will some of you AT LEAST get to within five years of current information???
One more time..
Scientists often use the term “climate change” instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth’s average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/gw-overview.html
mm., here are the links I could find for the info posted in that 1:46.
http://www.google.com/search?q=Definitive+Proof%3A+Majority+Of+Scientists+Do+Not+Support+Man+Made+Warming+Theory+Survey+of+peer+reviewed+studies+reveals+less+than+50%25+of+published+scientists+believe+global+warming+is+man+made.+More+skeptics+than+&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
Not exactly a veritable who’s who of scientific excellence, huh?
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
2:00 pm
USMC,
It was global warming. Of course last week when there were 2-3 days when temperatures were 15-20 degrees below normal it was at that point “climate change”. Its kinda like the flavor of the day. It changes depending on the political winds of the far left.
mm and Joe Mama,
What was that about a link? I didn’t post it originally because I think I had posted the entire article or almost all of it.
http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
2:01 pm
“Please present specific links to evidence that supports your position and which you personally find persuasive.” – Good grief man. I’ve provided over 3 million links for you. If you’re not satisfied with those you won’t be satisfied no matter what I do. Sounds like you’re getting desperate.
“By responding to Joe’s requests for evidence, which you had heretofore petulantly refused to do.” – Evidence to what? You asked for evidence of something I never said. As for the 2nd part, see above.
Adam
May 27th, 2011
2:02 pm
Thulsa: Most of those same scientists also believe that man’s role in global warming is not the chief culprit- that most of the problem is naturally occurring
This isn’t actually true, but even if it WAS, I have two words for you: COMPOUND EFFECT.
C’mon guys. The man did his OWN research and came to the conclusion that Climate Change is real and man is contributing. What have you got? IPCC emails that don’t prove anything and cheap shots at Al Gore? C’mon man!
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
2:03 pm
“you drive like you’re saved and you know it.”
I must remember that one.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:03 pm
Damnation. I should have used the tiny url equivalent:
http://tinyurl.com/3kym4nd
Here, however, are a couple of real surveys:
Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010
A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and resulted in the following two conclusions:
97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
And…
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who “listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change” believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.
@@
May 27th, 2011
2:04 pm
Don’t know if AmVet was responding to my “cork the erupting volcano” remark or not. If he was, he’s assuming I was talkin’ about above ground? I wasn’t.
There are also volcanic fissures on the ocean floor. More than was originally thought.
Scientists, YES SCIENTISTS, are theorizing, YES THEORIZING, that the oceans’ warming is because of those fissures, or volcanic ridges, as it were.
Seismic profiles of the rifting Guaymas Basin in the Gulf of California show molten rock from a deep-sea ridge squeezing far and wide as “sills” of magma into the layers of ocean floor sediments. The sediments, which are loaded with organic debris, are baked by the magma and so release vast amounts of greenhouse gases.
You’ll have to ask THE SCIENTISTS for the SPECIFIC # that supports their “vast amounts”. As of now, they have no way of knowing whether it’s less, equal to, or more than YOUR SCIENTIST(S) who THEORIZES that humans contribute most.
schnirt
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
2:05 pm
Doom,
As mm requested and as I do too — link please or admit your plagarism.
Dusty
May 27th, 2011
2:07 pm
Ho; hum…Bookman is making his Repub list and checking it twice. Seems Christi MIGHT run so lets quibble and dabble to make it nice.
But no being nice long. Even though Georgia gives Bookman a halfway decent job and a fine state to live in, he’s got no manners. Listen to him”(and I do confess while watching it, no major political in Georgia would be capble of such a performance.)” Got that?? GEORGIA!! Why sit in this nice state croaking and complaining ? Nobody is making Bookman stay in Georgia. The road to Pennsylvania is wide open.
Global warming..Yes, indeed. Summer is coming. You betcha!!! (Thank you, Sarah!)..
Adam
May 27th, 2011
2:09 pm
Sometimes I think you deniers would really actually not be deniers if you didn’t have liberal bogeymen to poke fun at for saying it’s real and we need to do something about it.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:10 pm
Doom — “Joe Mama, I believe I will simply defer to the scientists. And by that I don’t mean the IPCC report which as the article points out was written by politicians with minimal input from scientists. I suggest that you also defer to the scientists.”
Nope. Here’s why:
The first scientist cited in your post:
“Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte’s”
Not a climatologist. The second one cited in your post:
“history professor Naomi Oreskes”
Not a climatologist.
I grew up with a scientist in the house. I’m not afraid of them, I know how they think and work, and I know enough of their methodology to spot scientific misinformation and bullspit when it’s posted.
And I smell both all over that post of yours.
You’re like the nitwit outside the Smithsonian Institute in Washington who told me to reject the notion of climate change because ‘the director of the Smithsonian rejects it!’
I pointed out that the director — at the time — was a *historian.*
You remind me of that guy, Doom.
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
2:11 pm
Peadawg
May 27th, 2011
1:47 pm
“What do you think *you* know about it, Doom?”
Uh oh! Watch out Tulsa. Joe finally left me alone after I put him in his place and shut him up @ 1:14. Now he’s moved on to you.
Peadawg,
I blow his nonsense out of the water day after day. His modus operandi is always the same. He starts playing his semantics and word games about what was said and what wasn’t said to obfuscate the fact that he’s often wrong. When you whip him at his own game is when his frustration really mounts.
Peadawg,
See here’s the thing. Joe and I were both in the Navy but that’s where the similarities end. I’m driving an aircraft carrier. Little Joe- he’s down there in a rowboat. His friend mm is beside him in a rubber dinghy. They just gotta get outta the way before they get run over by the looming juggernaut. Little Joe will put up a fight but in the end his little rowboat just aint got the ammo of my aircraft carrier.
godless heathen
May 27th, 2011
2:11 pm
The climate is always changing. The rate of climate change is the issue. Very dramatic and drastic changes in the climate have been documented in sub-saharan Africa 2-3 million years ago. Cycles on the order of 400 years from very wet to very dry conditions. To what is this attributed?
Adam
May 27th, 2011
2:12 pm
“If you don’t like it, move” is about the same as “If you don’t like the price of gas, don’t buy any”
USMC
May 27th, 2011
2:12 pm
HEY! Hands off Barney’s “Boy”!
I’m sure if a Republican Congressman’s BOYFRIEND had been given special treatment in getting hired at Freddie Mac AT THE PAY SCALE of Barney Frank’s “Cabin Boy”, the Liberals AND the Media would be screaming Bloody Murder.
Unbelievable!
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
Of course last week when there were 2-3 days when temperatures were 15-20 degrees below …
An example of localized weather is meaningless and has virtually zero to do with global climatology.
saywhat?
May 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
Godless heathen asks “The climate is always changing. The rate of climate change is the issue. Very dramatic and drastic changes in the climate have been documented in sub-saharan Africa 2-3 million years ago. Cycles on the order of 400 years from very wet to very dry conditions. To what is this attributed?”
My best guess would be………..SOCIALISM!!!!!!
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
2:15 pm
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:13 pm
Of course last week when there were 2-3 days when temperatures were 15-20 degrees below …
An example of localized weather is meaningless and has virtually zero to do with global climatology.
AmVet,
I agree but I just point it out for fun because I remember watching Diane Sawyer and then Brian Williams I think it was trying to suggest a link between global warming and tornadoes when the tornados hit Tuscaloosa, AL and many other towns a few weeks ago.
Seems I also remember all the linkage the lefties were bringing up several years ago when we had 14 hurricanes in one year. They were trying to provide linkage then. And then the next year I think we had 2-3 hurricanes. But in the meantime they had gotten their bunk out and so gullible people were thinking “14 hurricanes- must be global warming!”
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:16 pm
Doom — “My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.- Joe Mama
“Joe Mama, Can you please point out to me where in my statement I claimed to be a scientist? If you can prove I made such claim I will send you $1,000.”
If you can point out to me where I said you claimed to be one, I’ll give *you* $2,000.
Here’s what I said, so you can work on your reading comprehension: “My recollection is that you’re involved in the health insurance industry and not a scientist at all.”
“My recollection is that you also are also not a scientist at all. But of course I’m not claiming that you are a scientist to begin with. If I am mistaken and you are perhaps a climate scientist then I apologize in advance. You may go ahead and paste your peer reviewed papers on climate change. I patiently await your scientific paper if you just happen to be a climate scientist.”
I’m not a climate scientist. But I grew up with a scientist in the house and was hanging around laboratories from the time I was in elementary school. I understand the scientific process, the peer-review process and the scientific method.
But I doubt you’re conversant with any of that. Especially if you’re relying on the word of a medical researcher when it comes to climatology.
Here’s a hint — find scientific experts from WITHIN a given field of study when you want to make claims that PERTAIN to that field of study.
Alternately, don’t go to a nuclear physicist when you’ve got a cold, and don’t rely on a physician to run your nuclear reactor.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:21 pm
Doom — “What was that about a link? I didn’t post it originally because I think I had posted the entire article or almost all of it.”
I believe that Jay prefers for people to post a few sentences or a couple of paragraphs, and then the link. Online periodicals can get in trouble for reproducing an entire article without attribution; Free Republic’s gotten in hot water for doing that in the past.
“http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm”
Yeah, I figured it was from someplace like that. If you want that spittle-flecked shriek accepted as science, then find it on a scientific or research-related site, not on some right-wing nutcase’s rant ranch.
If you want to debate science, then present scientific evidence, not political fever dreams. A quick poke around that guy’s website makes his mindset clear, and it ain’t science.
Misty Fyed
May 27th, 2011
2:22 pm
“Man kind contributes to climate change”……..
and so does the temperature of the sun, so does the number of cows that pass gas, so does the number of volcanoes that erupt in a year….etc. etc.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:22 pm
Octodawg — ““Please present specific links to evidence that supports your position and which you personally find persuasive.” – Good grief man. I’ve provided over 3 million links for you.”
You find *every one of those links* supportive of your position and persuasive, huh? All 3 million+ of them? (laughing, pointing)
“If you’re not satisfied with those you won’t be satisfied no matter what I do. Sounds like you’re getting desperate.”
Sounds like you are, given your refusal to present what you’ve been demanding of others all day.
“Evidence to what?”
Evidence to support your beliefs in re climate change, which you’ve been demanding from others all day.
“You asked for evidence of something I never said.”
I’ve asked for the same evidence you’ve been demanding from others. If you’re not willing to present it, then why should others?
Bosch
May 27th, 2011
2:23 pm
Well Joe Mama did the deed — yes, Doom, indeed — what DO all the world’s History professors have to say about climate change? I’d be just as interested in that as I would what as to the professional opinions of Animal Science professors discussing the implication of Christian Theology in India.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:25 pm
I agree but I just point it out for fun because I remember watching Diane Sawyer and then Brian Williams I think it was trying to suggest a link between global warming and tornadoes when the tornados (sic) hit Tuscaloosa, AL and many other towns a few weeks ago.
So why follow the lead of obvious TV persoanlity twits, like those two?
Gawd knows, pure conjecture already has a significant seat at this table.
Soothsayer
May 27th, 2011
2:26 pm
Well, Jay done kicked over another anthill with this climate change shyte! I can tell you with absolute certainty that my 1st gen Hummer don’t contribute no more to climate change/global warming than my Mini does! They’s both cars and that’s that!
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
2:27 pm
J Mama @ 2:10 “I grew up with a scientist in the house. I’m not afraid of them, I know how they think and work, and I know enough of their methodology to spot scientific misinformation and bullspit when it’s posted”
Sorry, but being able to repeat a recipe doesn’t make you a chef !
Dusty
May 27th, 2011
2:29 pm
BOSCH,
It is becoming more obvious every day. You love your puppies more than you love Republicans and we never bite.
By the way, has any one seen Granny Godzilla or has that already been asked? Does she have a gold jeep? hmm I hope not.
Mighy Righty
May 27th, 2011
2:30 pm
He lost my vote.
@@
May 27th, 2011
2:31 pm
Adam:
How you people can blog while getting anything else done is beyond me. I’m lousy at doing both.
GOALPOST MOVEMENT ALERT
For the record, 1) it wasn’t like that when they first started building. And most of New Orleans proper isn’t actually under sea level. 2) Everywhere you live has some sort of risk, and not everyone has the “choice” to live where they live.
I’m not blaming NO, just pointing out that natural disasters are a given…man’s manipulation of the environment doesn’t need to contribute more.
My tomato plants tying up so I’m off to buy pantyhose.
KINKY!!!!
@@
May 27th, 2011
2:33 pm
DID YOU KNOW?
Pantyhose (nylon) are/is a by-product of petroleum. I haven’t owned a pair in years.
Yay for me!
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
2:40 pm
Schrodinger’s Cat — “Sorry, but being able to repeat a recipe doesn’t make you a chef!”
I’m not claiming to be one. I’m simply pointing out the erroneous pseudo-scientific assertions and claims of others.
If people are going to make scientific claims, then it behooves them to have some sort of evidentiary support for that, preferably from within the scientific community that *studies* the field in question.
Relying on a medical researcher and a historian for support in re claims about global climate change isn’t evidentiary; it’s misleading at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
2:40 pm
time warp!
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
2:45 pm
Thulsa,
How much commission do you make on the sale of one of those Medicare Advantage scams. Does it vary with the company that offers it. Do you make more off of a policy you sell to someone that’s 65 versus 85. Do you make a living wage at it — $10k, $20k per year.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
2:50 pm
Bosch and Joe Mama, it strikes me as being akin to, “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV”!
There are numerous scientific disciplines directly related to the topic – climatology, oceanography, meteorology, cryology and glaciology, paleoclimatology, geophysics, other inter-disciplines in biology, physics, chemistry, environmental science and earth science.
History and medical research? That’s a bit of a stretch…
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
2:51 pm
J Mama – “evidentiary” support is evidential regardless of the source…to that end I don’t think either side has any “evidence” that is beyond circumstantial “lite”…Give a disingenuous scientist raw data on anything and they can manipulate it to tell the story they want to tell…
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:01 pm
” J Mama – Climate change “evidence” from a historian can hardly be cited as substantive. I strongly question whether it could be considered evidentiary at all.”
Why? What does it matter who opens the “box”? The cat is either dead or alive either way
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:01 pm
S. Cat — “J Mama – “evidentiary” support is evidential regardless of the source…to that end I don’t think either side has any “evidence” that is beyond circumstantial “lite”…Give a disingenuous scientist raw data on anything and they can manipulate it to tell the story they want to tell…”
Climate change “evidence” from a historian can hardly be cited as substantive. I strongly question whether it could be considered evidentiary at all.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:05 pm
time warp x2
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
3:05 pm
JB, I have a request.
Would you ban the xbox spambot at 3:01?
Thanks…
Thulsa Doom
May 27th, 2011
3:06 pm
TaxPayer
May 27th, 2011
2:45 pm
Thulsa,
How much commission do you make on the sale of one of those Medicare Advantage scams. Does it vary with the company that offers it. Do you make more off of a policy you sell to someone that’s 65 versus 85. Do you make a living wage at it — $10k, $20k per year.
Taxpayer, I’ll go ahead and answer it and then I gotta go. On a Medicare Advantage sale I make $436 per sale for someone aging into Medicare or taking an Advantage plan for the first time and only $234 on someone who has been on a different Advantage plan before and is switching to one that I offer.
I try to make 1 or 2 sales per day and always have 1-2 appointments in the morning that are set up for me by a girl that works for me. That’s why you guys never see me in the morning- usually I get here in the afternoon. My close ratio is about 90% or more. Its hard not to sell something that is often a zero premium. So you can do the math and figure out what I make. I also get $50 per sale overrides on any agents under me.
Now if they do away with Medicare Advantage I can sell private Medicare supplements which are more profitable, stay on the books usually forever, and you get lifetime renewal commissions on them. I just sold a Medicare supplement yesterday to a person on Medicare disability that will pay me $700 for example so when possible I would much prefer Medicare supplement plans. But I also get yearly renewal commissions on Medicare Advantage products forever. The renewals on both add up pretty well over time.
On this Medicare Advantage that you call a scam the people that benefit are the lower income and low middle class folks. That’s the irony of why the libs tend to oppose Med Adv. I would prefer to sell Med supplements which are private plans and have no subsidy from Medicare but the fact is that most folks just can’t afford them.
Now if you do away with MedAdv then I’m cool with that. They’ll have no choice but to purchase Supplements or supplement type products that are far more profitable for me. They would be doing me a huge favor and putting mega bucks in my pocket. But I like the MedAdv plans because they help poor and middle class seniors more than you can imagine. I would have thought libs would be in favor of helping those who have less since this is really their only option left. You would think anyway.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:11 pm
S. Cat — “Why? What does it matter who opens the “box”? The cat is either dead or alive either way”
It has to do with the relative value of the source and the information emanating therefrom. If I want evidence supporting an economic theory or proposed course of action, a geologist is not a particularly informed or valuable source. But beyond that, even if the geologist was the only authority I could get, I’d probably abandon his position (assuming I had taken it up) in the face of stronger information from better and more applicable sources. I’m not going to rely on and defend my position with the geologist’s claims when a dozen economists show up and start disagreeing with it — I’m going to listen to them and probably give their views some credence.
This is something of a metaphor for the scientific method itself.
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:16 pm
S. Cat — “I do find it interesting that ya’ll pick and choose which science to embrace and which to deny..Just a few weeks ago our beloved host (Jay) summarily dismissed modern physics, chaos theory, and, the butterfly effect as nothing more than a myth”
Respectfully, I’m not responsible for Jay’s arguments any more than he’s responsible for mine. You seem to be implying that our arguments are (or are supposed to be) bound by some form of collective responsibility and ownership.
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:17 pm
I do find it interesting that ya’ll pick and choose which science to embrace and which to deny..Just a few weeks ago our beloved host (Jay) summarily dismissed modern physics, chaos theory, and, the butterfly effect as nothing more than a myth
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:21 pm
If the data is real…what does it matter the source?
I’m sure anyone from any scientific background can tell temperature and do a litany of statistical analysis…if it’s real it’s real..it either floats or sinks..
My point?…unless you’ve done the analysis yourself (assuming you know how) then why rely on the “opinion” of others…especially the “opinions” of those who stand to make great financial gains on the matter…just sayin’
poison pen
May 27th, 2011
3:22 pm
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
11:31 am
…environmentalists like Gore have used faulty data…to prove their point.
dudder, and what *exactly* is this faulty data?
AmVet, I believe he said that the Oceans will rise with all the Glaciers melting, so he then went out and bought a Mansion on the ocean so he can watch it.
Please send him more money so he can keep on studying it.
AmVet
May 27th, 2011
3:27 pm
pen, you believe he said?
That’s your idea of “what *exactly * is this faulty data?”?
Damn, man. How intellectually lazy can you be?
Send him money? Since you’re so up on him, can you get me his address?
Sorry, pen. No sale.
I’ll continue to defer to the world’s scientific experts rather than you far, far right wing ideologues
Schrodingers cat
May 27th, 2011
3:29 pm
You seem to be implying that our arguments are (or are supposed to be) bound by some form of collective responsibility and ownership…
Not implying anything…except maybe selective reasoning as illustrated in my example of Jay
Joe Mama
May 27th, 2011
3:39 pm
S. Cat — “If the data is real…what does it matter the source? I’m sure anyone from any scientific background can tell temperature and do a litany of statistical analysis…if it’s real it’s real..it either floats or sinks..”
My point is that some would give undue credence to the claims of individuals and groups who are *less* qualified to make those claims, and would, possibly based upon personal factors like politics, personal adherence, etc. *discount* the claims of those *more* qualified to speak to the matter simply based upon that personal affinity.
“My point?…unless you’ve done the analysis yourself (assuming you know how) then why rely on the “opinion” of others…especially the “opinions” of those who stand to make great financial gains on the matter…just sayin’
My point is that *even if* you’ve done the analysis yourself, there are likely to be persons or groups who are more knowledgeable than you and whose statements on the matter are much more likely to be accurate and supportable.
“Not implying anything…except maybe selective reasoning as illustrated in my example of Jay”
Fair enough. I don’t know Jay (outside of his blog) and I’ve never met him, spoken to him or exchanged e-mail with him. I can’t speak to his thought process; only my own.
I’m out, Cat — thanks for a very interesting if altogether too brief discussion.
All be well and drive safely this weekend. The kids are out of school now, and I feel quite sure that they’re not watching the road as carefully as they should.
The global warming hoax
May 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
This is fascinating: “IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.” I have closely followed the satellite data and found exactly what you say – namely that temperature increase from 1990 to 2010 was a third of a degree, not 0.6 degrees as these guys predicted. But this is not the full story: this entire temperature increase took place in a short period of four years from 1998 to 2002. There was no warming before and there is none after. The cause of it was oceanic, not anthropogenic, and it was related to the anomalous super El Nino of 1998. The problem is, however that Hansen declared the arrival of warming in 1988 and satellites cannot see any of his warming. What they do see is a temperature oscillation, up and down by half a degree for twenty years, but no rise until the super El Nino shows up. Checking temperature curves from NASA, NOAA, and the Met Office however shows that they all report warming for this period. This so-called “late twentieth century warming” does not exist and graphs showing it are cooked. As in falsified. You can find out exactly how it was done from “What Warming?” whose second edition is now out on Amazon.
TP
May 27th, 2011
3:44 pm
As far as I am concerned Christie just gassed any chance of my vote. I thought Al Gore’s proof of his insanity would have at least meant something.
Al Gore the global warming expert
May 27th, 2011
3:56 pm
I believe everything Gore said in his movie about climate change. Never mind the 23 documented scientific errors noted in his movie.
When Al Gore says that global warming will result in ocean levels rising to the point where all of Cuba and all or most of Florida will be under water I believe it. Never mind that a third of Cuba is mountainous with 5-6 thousand foot peaks. Heck- I guess if all of Cuba will be under water then so will every American city except possibly Denver- elevation 5,000 feet.
Loved the camera shot where Gore showed the ice sheets breaking up around antarctica. Oh, it was later revealed and admitted to by Gore that they used styrofoam and that that really wasn’t antarctica? Oh well. At least it was good enough special effects to fool most people. Unfortunately the BS didn’t fool everyone. Thank God for some clear thinking people out there.
What happened 100 million years ago when all of North America was a hot, temperate rain forest supporting cold blooded reptiles like dinosaurs. Well you dolts. Didn’t you know the dinosaurs were burning fossil fuels, driving SUVs, and all that?
The recent ice age 10,000 years ago? Cavemen were driving their cars also which started somehow causing global heating which somehow caused an ice age.
md
May 27th, 2011
4:08 pm
I see some still don’t understand the difference between the concept of “possible” vs the concept of “certain”………………
And dense Adam? I don’t believe I’m one of those that have swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker……..
I’ll ask one last time……..what percentage of the warming is natural??????
Someone obviously not as dense as I should have a logical answer…………..
Adam
May 27th, 2011
4:33 pm
md: Your argument based on your EXACTLY HOW MUCH question is meaningless. I have explained why. You don’t NEED to know exactly how much to accept that it’s happening, that humans have an effect, and that action can be taken to minimize that effect. That is ALL I have to say about it, for the umpteenth time.
oldguy
May 27th, 2011
4:49 pm
Hey Jay,
I have the answer!!! Humans are responsible for global warming?? Then lets kill off 50% of the humans. I’ve got plenty of ammo so I’ll start (now where do all the libs gather?)
In case you haven’t noticed the earth is round (you know, like Al Gore) so the atmosphere goes all around; so when India, China, Russia, etc open a new coal fired power plant to provide power to make all those little trinkets everyone likes [on the average of one a week] you get mega tons of new pollution in the air! Have you and Obozo come up with a plan to stop that illegal imigration from coming into our air space??
Waiting……….Waiting………
md
May 27th, 2011
5:35 pm
“md: Your argument based on your EXACTLY HOW MUCH question is meaningless. I have explained why. You don’t NEED to know exactly how much to accept that it’s happening, that humans have an effect, and that action can be taken to minimize that effect. That is ALL I have to say about it, for the umpteenth time.”
No Adam, it is not meaningless……..if the number is actually 100%, then the whole argument is moot……….since we don’t know that number, there is certainly a possibility that the number could be anything.
And no, one does not need to know to BELIEVE that we are contributing………..it still comes down to belief…..just like god, evolution, and a host of other theories that are out there………….
If one insists one saying it is a “known” fact, one is not being honest with oneself about all the possibilities……….as I said before, even these expert scientists will admit that their models are based on educated assumptions………they have to be….there is no data that verifies the info for 4 billion years…………….
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
May 27th, 2011
5:49 pm
Jay, I refer you to the March/April edition of the Tech alumni magazine for the most concise, short refutation of global warming I have seen (a response from an engineer). This will be over your head, as well as that of any politician, but trust me, global warming is a pure hoax intended only to curtail the activities of corporations and citizens. For something more on your level, I refer you to the Algore Armageddon countdown on Rush’s website. I believe it was the former President of Poland that said something along the lines of “Yesterday’s communists are today’s environmentalists”. Y’all need to move on to something else, like “the earth is flat”, or something like that.
Schrodinger's cat
May 27th, 2011
7:22 pm
BTW…wasn’t it CT that said something to the effect of…man is powerless over mother nature
She was refering to the nuke plant in JP after the quake and tsunami – so which is it?…our fault or we’re too small to have an impact in scope of things..?
I honestly think you humans really believe you’re that smart
Schrodinger's cat
May 27th, 2011
7:35 pm
md -”If one insists one saying it is a “known” fact, one is not being honest with oneself about all the possibilities……….”
As my friend Heisenberg used say…”You can never know anything with complete certainty!”
MONROE GEMS CH
May 28th, 2011
2:50 pm
ЗАВЕРШАЕТ СВОЮ РАБОТУ ЮВЕЛИРНЫЙ БУТИК – MONROE GEMS CH !!!
Продолжается финальная ликвидация изделий с бриллиантами и драгоценными камнями по низким ценам .
ИМЕННО ДЛЯ ВАС ДОПОЛНИТЕЛЬНЫЕ СКИДКИ !!!
Отправка во все регионы.
Adam
May 31st, 2011
12:04 pm
md: I can see that you just don’t understand the concept of what I am trying to say, and making up a false equivalence between faith and fact. That means we can’t discuss this because you don’t even get where I’m coming from, and you have some sort of false reality going in your head.