Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-26-2017 1:35 PM
386 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,380 Year: 9,986/21,208 Month: 3,073/2,674 Week: 489/961 Day: 102/117 Hour: 2/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   Climate Change is Real
petrophysics1
Member
Posts: 343
From: Boulder, Wy
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 16 of 43 (687137)
01-07-2013 10:39 PM


Geology and Climate Change
Fact-based Climate Debate
Lee C. Gerhard – December 16, 2009
It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.

Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.
• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.
• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.
• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.
• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.
• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.
• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.
• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.
• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.
• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years — extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.
• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.
• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.
Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,“ or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist.

A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science.

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.

If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when.

A slide show by Dr.Gerhard I think you should be able to follow it. If you then still believe in AGW please explain the graph on page/slide 31 to me.

http://www.geocraft.com/...e_Docs/Gerhard_Climate_Change.pdf

I can probably get a copy of his CV if this profile isn't enough:

Profile on Dr. Lee C. Gerhard:
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard is Principal Geologist of the Kansas Geological Survey, having retired from the Directorship and as State Geologist in 1999. He received his B.S. in geology at Syracuse University and the M. S. and Ph.D. degrees at the University of Kansas. He has combined academic, government, and industry leadership and technical appointments, including petroleum exploration, management of exploration programs, oil and gas regulation, reservoir geology, and management of research. His research interests are in carbonate sedimentology, petroleum geology, and environmental public policy. He has been the State Geologist of North Dakota, and led a marine ecology and geology research and teaching laboratory in the U. S. Virgin Islands. Prior to returning to Kansas, he was the Getty Professor of Geological Engineering at the Colorado School of Mines and operated an independent petroleum exploration company. He is licensed as geologist in Kansas and Wyoming.

Dr. Gerhard is an Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, past president and Honorary Member of that society`s Division of Environmental Geosciences, an Honorary Member of the Association of American State Geologists, and an Honorary Member of the Kansas Geological Society.

He has published more than 150 papers and books on geology, petroleum exploration, natural resources, and environmental policy. He co-chaired the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Climate Change Issues Committee. He is active in wildlife and fisheries conservation issues in the U. S. and Canada, and has organized three recent major conferences on resource and environmental issues. He lectures widely in the U. S. and in Europe about environment and resources and global climate issues

.

Edited by petrophysics1, : increase paragraph spacing to separate slides from Gerhard's text

Edited by petrophysics1, : put Gerhard's text in a box


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-08-2013 4:19 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 23 by DBlevins, posted 01-08-2013 7:25 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Taq, posted 01-09-2013 6:41 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
petrophysics1
Member
Posts: 343
From: Boulder, Wy
Joined: 04-05-2006


Message 17 of 43 (687138)
01-07-2013 11:05 PM


AAPG Statement on climate change
The AAPG has questioned the science behind human caused climate change and their statement on climate change is:

"In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years."

AAPG=American Association of Petroleum Geologists


Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NoNukes, posted 01-07-2013 11:52 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 25 by Taq, posted 01-09-2013 6:36 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


(5)
Message 18 of 43 (687141)
01-07-2013 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 11:05 PM


Re: AAPG Statement on climate change
Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years.

Is this some kind of rebuttal? Seriously? This is the exact some non-science that I hear from Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition. Hasn't this line of argument been chewed on enough?

AAPG=American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Next up, foxes question need for expensive security at hen house; volunteer for guard duty.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 11:05 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9440
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 19 of 43 (687142)
01-07-2013 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by DBlevins
01-07-2013 5:00 PM


Re: Science first?
I appreciate the links.

I'll admit that my post was an attempt to get Coyote to comment substantively on the paper since his wont is to post and run. I don't actually see all that much science in the paper.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by DBlevins, posted 01-07-2013 5:00 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15767
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.1


(2)
Message 20 of 43 (687154)
01-08-2013 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Geology and Climate Change
A slide show by Dr.Gerhard I think you should be able to follow it. If you then still believe in AGW please explain the graph on page/slide 31 to me.

Well, it displays a stunning lack of relevance. What it seems to show is that if you leave the climate to itself, rises in temperature (due to Milankovitch cycles or whatever) drive increases in CO2. This does not answer, and cannot answer, the question of what happens if you artificially increase CO2. 'Cos of that being a different question.

It's like trying to argue that you can't kill someone by burying them alive by observing that in the normal course of events people die first and then are buried as a result of being dead. This is fortunately true, but it does not and cannot answer the question of what would happen if you did bury someone alive, for which we would need reference either to fundamental principles or to a totally different set of statistics.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 10:39 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11245
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 21 of 43 (687170)
01-08-2013 10:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2013 8:22 PM


Most excellent.

For the video-impared:

What is most excellent? What do they say?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2013 8:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 22 of 43 (687174)
01-08-2013 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
01-06-2013 8:22 PM


Full Transcript of Moyers' show ... excerpts for discussion
The full transcript of the show in Message 1 is at

http://billmoyers.com/...ng-people-care-about-climate-change#

Here are some excerpts on the different groups of people and their reaction to global climate change information:

quote:
... Almost all Americans have at least heard of it. But we've in our own work showed that in fact there is no single public. There are multiple publics within the United States. In fact, what we've identified are six Americas.

Six different Americas that each respond to this issue in very different ways and need different kinds of information about climate change to become more engaged with it. So the first group that we've identified is a group we call the alarmed. It's about 16 percent of the public. These are people who think it's happening, that it's human caused, that it's a serious and urgent problem and they're really eager to get on with the solutions.

... . Then comes a group that we call the concerned. This is about 29 percent of the public. These are people that think okay, it's happening, it's human caused, it's serious, but they tend to think of it as distant.

Then comes a group, about a quarter of the public that we call the cautious. These are people who are kind of still on the fence, they're trying to make up their mind. Is it happening, is it not? Is it human, is it natural? Is it a serious risk or is it kind of overblown? So they're paying attention but really just haven't made up their mind about it yet. They need to be just engaged in some of the basic facts of climate change.

Then comes a group, about eight percent of the public that we call the disengaged. They've heard of global warming, but they don't know anything about it. They say over and over, "I don't know anything about the causes, I don't know anything about the consequences. I don't know anything about the potential solutions." So for them it's really just basic awareness that they need to be engaged on. Two last groups, one is we call the doubtful, it's about 13 percent of the public. These are people who say, "Well, I don't think it's happening, but if it is, it's natural, nothing humans had anything to do with and therefore nothing we can do anything about."

... And then last but not least, 8 percent of Americans are what call the dismissive. And these are people who are firmly convinced it's not happening, it's not human caused, it's not a serious problem and many are what we would lovingly call conspiracy theorists. They say it's a hoax. It's scientists making up data, it's a UN plot to take away American sovereignty and so on.

So you know, this is why if we were to do a true engagement campaign in this country we would need to recognize that there are very different Americans who need to be engaged in very different ways who have different values and who trust different messengers.


That's based on public perception, not the science:

  1. the alarmed, 16%
  2. the concerned, 29%
  3. the cautious, 25%
  4. the disengaged, 8%
  5. the doubtful, 13%
  6. the dismissive, 8%

This is in spite of a large public misinformation\dismissive campaign by oil and coal industry to disenfranchise the science:

quote:
But it's not just the amount of media coverage. It's also the fact that there's been a very active disinformation campaign that's been going on for many years, it's very well documented, that was primarily, certainly originally and still to this day, driven by fossil fuel company interests who are the world's most profitable companies. I mean, they're very happy, thank you very much, with the status quo, okay?

Well, historically this has been the key strategy all along and in fact it's a strategy that was lifted explicitly directly out of the tobacco wars.

Which is make people think that the science is still unsettled. And if my perception is that the experts are still arguing over whether the problem exists, as a layperson my tendency is to say, "Well, you know, I'll let them figure it out. And you know, I'll take this as, much more seriously once they've reached their conclusion." Okay, so that has been the primary message. That has been the primary strategy of that disinformation campaign is to get people to believe that the experts do not agree.


So the response from Coyote is predictable, if she is skeptical of liberals and listens to the misinformation propaganda, and the response from Petrophysics is predictable, if he is skeptical of liberals and is concerned about his occupation, where he is given lots of propaganda to keep doing what he is doing.

So what is the science saying?

quote:
I say let's engage on the science. Let me hear what your arguments are and then let's respond to them. And I would ask in turn that you listen to what the scientific community has to say. It's perfectly fine to have a great conversation with many people about the science itself because the science is so robust at this point. I mean, we have basically known for over 20 years now that, and it actually boils down, for all the complexity of the science it's really quite simple.

It's real, okay, climate change is real. It is mostly human caused this time. There have been climate changes over many millions of years in the past that had nothing to do with human beings. This time it's mostly being caused by our activities. Third, it's going to be bad. In fact, it's bad now and it's going to get worse.

Currently we are scheduled, unless we change direction to go through the two-degree mark. And in fact, we're heading on towards three degrees, four degrees and perhaps even six degrees centigrade warmer than in the past. As you go things get much, much worse. And in fact, let me just use a simple analogy.

Because people often will say, "Wow, you know, four, five degrees, that doesn't sound like very much. I mean, I see the temperature change more from night to day." But it's the wrong way to think about it. I mean, think about when you get sick and you get a fever, okay. Your body is usually at, you know, 98.7 degrees.

If your temperature rises by one degree you feel a little off, but you can still go to work. You're fine. It rises by two degrees and you're now feeling sick, in fact you're probably going to take the day off because you definitely don't feel good. And in fact, you're getting everything from hot flashes to cold chills, okay.

At three you're starting to get really sick. And at four degrees and five degrees your brain is actually slipping into a coma, okay, you're close to death. I think there's an analogy here of that little difference in global average temperature just like that little difference in global body temperature can have huge implications as you keep going. And so unfortunately the world after two and especially after three degrees starts getting much more frightening, and that's exactly what the scientists keep telling us. But will we pay attention to those warning signs?


Some will some won't.

One of the things I have learned is that it is easier to maintain a healthy environment than it is to regain one.

The sooner we act the easier it is to have a beneficial effect on reducing the impact of these changes.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 01-06-2013 8:22 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 1157 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


(3)
Message 23 of 43 (687247)
01-08-2013 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Geology and Climate Change
No climate scientist, that I know of, would dispute that CO2 concentrations appear to lag behind temperature in the paleoclimate data. In fact there are a bunch of papers about this lag, see Caillon et al., 2003, Science magazine; Lorius et al., 1990; Monnin et al., 2001, Science Magazine

There appears to be about a 1000 year lag between the time that temperatures increase and an increase in CO2 concentrations during the 5000 year warming trends. What happens during the rest of those 4000 years? Unless you believe that CO2 has NO impact on our climate, in which case I can not help you, then the data suggests that the rising CO2 amplifies the warming trend until equilibrium sets in. According to the research the impact of this CO2 is about 1/3 of the total warming.

The fact that CO2 concentrations are rising in the atmosphere should not be in dispute. It has been known for a very long time that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and the data supports that conclusion. Humans are putting massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, overwhelming the ability of the ocean and the biosphere to absorb the CO2, and we know the rise in CO2 is human caused because we have the isotope data to prove it. If you're interested in the literature you can check out these papers:

Stuiver, M., Burk, R. L. and Quay, P. D. 1984. 13C/12C ratios and the transfer of biospheric carbon to the atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 89, 11,731-11,748.
Francey, R.J., Allison, C.E., Etheridge, D.M., Trudinger, C.M., Enting, I.G., Leuenberger, M., Langenfelds, R.L., Michel, E., Steele, L.P., 1999. A 1000-year high precision record of d13Cin atmospheric CO2. Tellus 51B, 170–193.
Quay, P.D., B. Tilbrook, C.S. Wong. Oceanic uptake of fossil fuel CO2: carbon-13 evidence. Science 256 (1992), 74-79


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 10:39 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4538
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


(2)
Message 24 of 43 (687337)
01-09-2013 3:59 PM



Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(7)
Message 25 of 43 (687354)
01-09-2013 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 11:05 PM


Re: AAPG Statement on climate change
The AAPG has questioned the science behind human caused climate change and their statement on climate change is:

"In recent decades global temperatures have risen. Yet, our planet has been far warmer and cooler than today many times in the geologic past, including the past 10,000 years."

AAPG=American Association of Petroleum Geologists

In other news, cigarette companies claim that people were dying from cancer before cigarettes became popular which casts serious doubt on the link between cigarettes and lung cancer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 11:05 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 6077
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.7


(3)
Message 26 of 43 (687356)
01-09-2013 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by petrophysics1
01-07-2013 10:39 PM


Re: Geology and Climate Change
A slide show by Dr.Gerhard I think you should be able to follow it. If you then still believe in AGW please explain the graph on page/slide 31 to me.

You mean where the increase in carbon dioxide causes a feedback resulting in higher temps? I think the implications are pretty clear. The initial heating due to the changes in the Earth's wobble and orbit result in higher solar radiation. This, in turn, heats the oceans which releases more CO2 into the atmosphere (not to mention the melting of permafrost which releases massive amounts of methane). The increased CO2 causes a feedback response which causes more warming than the increase in solar radiation alone.

It comes down to a very simple question based on very simple physics. If we increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will this cause the atmosphere to trap more heat, the same amount of heat, or less heat?

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by petrophysics1, posted 01-07-2013 10:39 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18257
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 27 of 43 (687681)
01-15-2013 11:09 AM


For those interested in some of the data
http://grist.org/...om-the-governments-climate-change-report

quote:
The 32 most alarming charts from the government’s climate change report

By Philip Bump

Just reading about the government’s massive new report outlining what climate change has in store for the U.S. is sobering. In brief: temperature spikes, drought, flooding, less snow, less permafrost. But if you really want to freak out, you should check out the graphs, charts, and maps.

For the more visually oriented bunker builders out there, here are the 32 most alarming images from the 1,200-page draft report. (Click any of them to embiggen.)

North Carolina will see rising whatever-they-call-its, too.

If you really want to sleep poorly tonight, open the full report and search for your state. If the temperature is only expected to go up five degrees, consider yourself lucky.


Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3487
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 28 of 43 (702587)
07-10-2013 12:51 AM


Climate Disconnect in Congress
More or less, a "for whatever it's worth" link:

http://scienceblogs.com/...den/2013/07/09/climate-disconnect

quote:
On July 9, 2013, Rep. Henry A. Waxman released a report comparing the impacts of climate change in members’ districts with members’ voting records. The report found a widespread “climate disconnect” in the voting records of the Republican members representing the districts most affected by the soaring temperatures in 2012. They cast anti-climate votes 96% of the time. No similar “climate disconnect” was found in the voting records of House Democrats.

Link to full report:
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/...rt-2013-7-9.pdf

There's also an interactive map link:
http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=pag...

Moose


Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2013 12:03 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11245
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 29 of 43 (702633)
07-10-2013 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Minnemooseus
07-10-2013 12:51 AM


Re: Climate Disconnect in Congress
So when Republicans go: "Geez, it hasn't been very hot this year, I doubt Global Warming" then people bitch about how its not about one single year and its a global trend thing about climate and not weather. And when Republicans don't react to one single year then people bitch about that too.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2013 12:51 AM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-10-2013 7:53 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3487
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 30 of 43 (702687)
07-10-2013 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by New Cat's Eye
07-10-2013 12:03 PM


Re: Climate Disconnect in Congress
Yes, I agree.

My impression was "Kind of amusing but not really valid use of statistics".

Moose


Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-10-2013 12:03 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017