Never let the facts get in the way of a campaign theme.
Democrat Erin Bilbray, in a debate with incumbent Republican Congressman Joe Heck covered by the Las Vegas newspaper, accused Heck and all GOP lawmakers of being responsible for the presence of Ebola due to federal budget cuts for health research.
Heck pointed out that Congress this year voted to boost funding for the Centers for Disease Control by 8.2 percent.
“Our CDC needs to be funded. Our hospitals are not prepared to address this issue,” Bilbray insisted.
She obviously is getting her talking points from this administration.
CDC head Thomas Frieden blamed budget cuts when he said, “There are outbreaks happening today that we’re not able to recognize, stop or prevent as effectively as we should be able to.”
The head of the National Institutes of Health, Francis Collins, said if there had been no budget cuts “we probably would have had (an Ebola) vaccine in time for this.”
All lies. There have been no budget cuts. The CDC’s budget is 25 percent higher in 2008 and 188 percent higher than in 2000. The NIH budget is double that of 14 years ago.
It ain’t how much money they get that matters, but how they spend it.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, the NIH has spent more than $39 million on valuable research to cure what ails us.
For example, the agency spent:
— $2,873,440 trying to figure out why lesbians are obese.
— $466,642 to find out why fat girls have a tough time getting dates.
— $2,075,611 encouraging old people to join choirs.
— $674,590 texting drunks in bars to try to get them to stop drinking.
— $2,101,064 on wearable insoles and buttons that can track a person’s weight, and $374,670 to put on fruit and vegetable puppet shows for preschoolers.
— $275, 227 on new children’s menus.
— $430,608 for mother-daughter dancing outreach to fight obesity.
— $105,066 following 16 schizophrenic LGBT Canadians for a study on their community experiences.
— And my favorite, $2,466,482 to a researcher to develop “origami condoms,” in male, female, and anal versions. The inventor has been accused of fraud for using grant money for plastic surgery and parties at the Playboy mansion.
— $5 million to “mine and analyze” social media to study American’s attitudes toward drug abuse, and $306,900 to use Twitter for surveillance on depressed people.
Free Beacon noted that Health and Human Services has just recently contracted with an outside source to spend $8.6 million to research and test an Ebola vaccine.
Let’s see, I’m checking Article 1, Section 8 for Constitutional authorization…
To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To track and analyze the behavior of fat lesbians;
Oh yeah…I guess it is there!
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Good point, there. The Center for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health are unconstitutional and should be disbanded.
“The budgets for the CDC and health research have indeed been flat or have shrunk slightly in recent years as House Republicans forced cuts to domestic Cabinet budgets upon Obama. This was especially pronounced in a 2011 budget pact that created automatic spending cuts known as sequestration, as well as stringent limits on the overall pot of money that can be appropriated for programs like disease control and research into a cure for Ebola.
“In reality, any cuts to the NIH and CDC are deeper than they appear because inflation eats into the purchasing power of both agencies.
“So, a program at the Department of Health and Human Services that helps hospitals prepare for Ebola and similar diseases like the Enterovirus has absorbed a 44 percent cut in its budget since 2010 once inflation is taken into account.” http://tinyurl.com/orqax2y
“The obesity epidemic is a major public health problem for our country, and no communities are immune. To stop the epidemic, we need to understand what all the causes are, and the causes and solutions to obesity are likely different for different parts of our society. Lesbian and bisexual girls and women make up almost 5 million Americans. In terms of sexual orientation and obesity, lesbians and bisexual girls and women – along with heterosexual men — seem to be the hardest hit. Why is that? We don’t know, but our study is designed to find out so we can come up with better ways to combat the epidemic for these communities.”
Professor S. Bryn Austin, Harvard University School of Public Health.
And it seems to me that developing a condom that men would actually want to use would be something well worth spending research money on.
It’s interesting that the title of this paper is, “Who is telling the big lies about health care research?” The graph above does not appear to be corrected for inflation. This trick is commonly used by organizations with an ax to grind. A 14 year trend shown without adjusting for inflation will show numbers growing faster than reality. If my source can be trusted, it appears to have roughly the same figures corrected for inflation, although it also does not specify that. They show that NIH funding has remained surprisingly constant since 2000. http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/10/are-nih-budget-cuts-really-blame-spread-ebola/96443/
Either way, it appears to be that no major budget cuts have been made in recent years
That’s a wordy way of saying you found information confirming the information Tom displayed, Rincon.
Politifact ( a rather trustworthy source, I think we can all agree) has found the NIH and CDC both saw some budget cuts however, blame cannot be singled out for one side or the other. There is plenty of THAT to go around. They have a link in their article.
Moreover, funding is not the biggest determining factor in producing a vaccine,,,there are a number of other decisions that held this particular line of research up prior to the budget cuts.
I trust Politifact.
Read for yourselves.
Depression and beer — problem solved.
Although Tom’s information is correct, the slopes of his and my graph differ greatly. He utilized the graph in good faith, but poor conclusions can result from graphs covering 14 years that fail to address the effects of inflation.
I think you left one out, Tom. NIH and CDC had a bigger program (that’s close to Mrs. Pinocchio’s heart!)
“Telling Taxpayers How to Eat ($15 billion) – Yes, that’s billion with a “b” in front. In a massive overstep of government power, Obamacare carved out $15 billion for CDC to convince Americans to make “healthy” choices through “Community Transformation Grants” (CTG). The CTG program “supports efforts to modify behavior through anti-obesity campaigns, as well as anti-smoking and pro-sin tax regulations and legislation” at the state and local levels, according to the bipartisan Citizens Against Government Waste.”
– See more at: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/joseph-rossell/2014/10/16/hey-journalists-15-ways-nih-and-cdc-wasted-taxpayer-money#sthash.yTRMcrws.dpuf
what is wrong with finding ways to convince people to smoke less?
Since the entire CDC budget that Thomas presented in a previous post is less than $8 billion, I have to suspect that Athos’ $15 billion dollar figure is a hoax. Googling “15 billion CDC” yields nothing about this at all. Can anyone show me a credible source supporting Athos’ contention?
People should shape government. Government should not shape people … physically or mentally.
Only giant corporations spending billions of dollars to convince people to supersize their french fries and buy cigarettes should do that.
McD’s sales are off, nyp.
I gotta say, I had a double quarter-pounder w/ cheese last night, and it absolutely hit the spot.
Nanny State (sung to the tune of “Galveston”)
Nanny state, oh nanny state, I still fear your power flowin’
I still see your spies a-goin’
Checkin’ on my plate and what all food I ate.
Nanny state, oh nanny state, I never see your budget slashin’
While I watch your enforcers bashin’
I clean my gun and dream of retribution.
I still see them standin’ by the door
Standin’ there pushin’ friends and family to the floor
Are they waiting there for me?
Watchin’ me whenever I try to run
Nanny state, oh nanny state, we’re so afraid of dyin’
Before we dry the tears we’ve been a-cryin’
Before we watch your drones flyin’ in the sun
Watchin’ us wherever we try to run
“I clean my gun and dream of retribution.”
Nyp wants to abolish the first amendment by singling out one line in a poem.
Fascist, communist, totalitarian. Nyp, these are thy names if you continue the path you have chosen.
Nope, Patrick Henry wrote it…
I see we had another second amendment event the other day….can’t help but wonder why nyp wasn’t on top of this one…..
Instead of arguing about availability of guns, is anyone interested in finding another explanation for our astronomical murder rate?
Rinny, the combined budgets for CDC and NIH for 2014 was $11.3 billion (CDC $6.9, NIH $4.4) Given that the CDC started in 1946 with a $10million budget, and the NIH started in 1887, are you really questioning their ability to spend $15 billion on changing American’s eating and smoking habits? How many years have they been at it? AND…
You do realize that the Pinocchio Regime has spent $18.245 Trillion (not counting this year) since coming into office? That’s an average of $3.650 Trillion, 5 years running.
Nor does that include QE 1,2,3, ad infinitum, which is …… how many trillion$ again? Does anybody know? Can anybody really find out the truth?
Smaller government is what this conservative believes is the answer. Pinocchio (and his ilk) want larger government to rule a once free people. What evidence this creature has that the “elite” are smart enough to make the decisions belonging to 310 million people, his business, or that he could do it better, is not plainly evident to me.
Is it evident to you?
petey, you better worry about retribution. Viva La France!
I think the “elite” (i.e., the peoples’ elected representatives) are smart enough to decide that without a national system of health insurance like that in every other industrialized country, people like Athos will choose not to purchase insurance and, after they get sick and receive expensive medical care, will declare bankruptcy and leave other people with their big medical bills.
As opposed to your system that adds $92 billion/year for our kids to pay off.
And since when was it preferable for Americans to want to be like every other industrialized country, petey? I believe in limited, small government, with individual responsibility, and the individual paying the consequences of his decisions, NOT future generations that follow.
Show me how your dear little Pinocchio is making beneficial decisions for anyone other than the connected and liberal elite? (of course, I’m talking about American Citizens only, petey!)
The CBO estimates that health reform will cut the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. It has already resulted in an unprecedented reduction in the rate of growth of health care spending. And it is one of the reasons why the federal deficit has shrunk so dramatically.
Rincon, now there is a discussion worth having.
As long as weaponry is decreed off the table.
This is PEOPLE we are really discussing, right?
How soon do you expect THIS guy will be vilified by the “consensus of climate scientists”??
Ouch! Baby….this has got to hurt.
“the founder of the Weather Channel.”
I assume you agree with the author that Medicare and Social Security are terrible programs that should be abolished.
Idiot. It’s not whether or not I agree to anything. It’s called “simple mathematics”.
These programs are not sustainable. It’s just a question of “when”.
petey, you can’t spin math. All you can do is lie.
So you and your fellow republicans want to abolish them
The first vote is IN!
Nyp begins the excommunication of yet another previously loyal minion.
A religion is supportable only by loyal members.
huh? Whom am I “excommunicating”??
The Hill: “May, June, August and now September have broken global temperature records, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said, putting 2014 well on track to become the warmest year since record keeping began 135 years ago.”
“And altogether, from January to September, 2014 is tying 1998 and 2010 for the warmest years in recorded history, according to the data.”
“‘Every month to date in 2014 has been among its four warmest on record, with May, June, August, and September all record warm,’ NOAA’s report states, excluding only February.”
“the founder of the Weather Channel.”
AND you go to the support structure provided by the church, the “accepted” members of the religion.
huh? Why would one pay attention to a TV weather guy who isn’t a climate scientist? I don’t get my views on climate science from Al Roker, either. I rely on the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists, supplemented by my practical observations and judgment.
“Given that the CDC started in 1946 with a $10million budget, and the NIH started in 1887, are you really questioning their ability to spend $15 billion on changing American’s eating and smoking habits”. I don’t question their ability to spend it. I question the funds being made available to them. I can’t find any verification of what should be a big story.
Hey Steve, I would like to know your opinion and those of others, regarding why our murder rate is so high, keeping gun availability off the table. I don’t have a real good explanation of my own.
I echo nyp’s thought on global warming and have one thing to add. If you guys ignore the 97% of climatologists, why should I bow down to the opinion of a lone wolf, especially one who’s more of a businessman and TV personality than he is a meteorologist?
Sorry, I spoke too soon. It appears that John Coleman isn’t even a meteorologist. His obtained his degree in journalism in 1957. I find no evidence of a meteorological education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Coleman_(news_weathercaster)
Can anyone show that this guy actually knows anything about climatology or is he just a weather bunny without the bikini?
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
unfortunately, most of those guys are TV weathermen, other non-scientists, or medical doctors, or scientists who have absolutely nothing to do with climate science. I’m told that the petition also contains the purported signatures of the following eminent climatologists: “Perry S. Mason” “Michael J. Fox”, “John C. Grisham”
You want it fixed, petey? You pay for it yourself. But “warming climate” isn’t what you really want, is it? You want a bankrupt USA, who then turns to big government to feed them. (Moo shell Pinocchio will have a field day then, won’t she??)
Your goal (as is the fundamental transformer himself) is to destroy the middle class, stripping us of our freedoms, and turning us to the government as our savior. By any means possible.
And there will always be a few of us old fossils out here, that will try to stop you. All we have to do is tell the truth.
The ONLY acceptable source is the source that calls itself the only acceptable source…
I love it.
It’s a religion now, no longer science since you guys have eliminated ANY outside influences.
I never said the guy who founded the Weather Channel was a scientist, I said he used to be a supporter but has come to the conclusion its a pack of lies.
Let the vilification begin!
Rincon, just about every report involving deadly violence has the actual reason involved and detailed pretty well.
Those very rare cases of mass or serial acts of violence take longer to determine the source of the anger or need to act out, but one is always discovered.
The question you seem to be asking is what prompts people to decide to do the things they do?
Psychologists have been trying to figure that one out for centuries.
You want something but do not get it, so you commit murder. You covet something but cannot obtain it, so you quarrel and fight. You do not get things because you do not ask for them!
My question isn’t so much why people commit murder but rather, why a U.S. citizen is so much more likely to commit murder than a citizen of almost any other OECD country. What is it about us or them as groups? If we cannot find any other possibility, it would leave the availability of guns as the only hypothesis and I don’t accept that.
The only thing that makes John Coleman special out of hundreds or perhaps thousands of weathermen is that he is one of the few that does not accept the findings of the scientific community. Probably some form of senility.
There is another thing that makes John Coleman special out of all those weatherdorks….he was able to create and reap the benefits of, a cable TV channel.
In that position he was deluged with the “word” of the IPCC minions and he has come to his own conclusions.
The vilification continues!
We’re merely trusting the overwhelming majority. You’re talking about a vast conspiracy. Sounds like you’re the one doing the vilifying, Steve.
Why do liberals love misery and poverty?
It’s Conservatives who love misery and poverty. Especially poverty. What rock have you been under? As we’ve discussed before, there is far less poverty in most other OECD countries – unless you can find a source disputing that – and Conservatives want to keep it that way. They want large numbers of citizens to either be deprived of good health care and to go bankrupt when neglect fails to cure. We have lots more homicide than almost any other OECD country and Conservatives are silent as to how to fix that ; except for wanting to throw more and more people in jail, which clearly hasn’t worked, but creates its own poverty and misery. Conservatives also want to reverse many of the strides that we’ve made in the past decades. For example, they rail about government safety rules, despite abundant evidence that they save lives and injury. I could go on and on. Oh wait. I have!
“You’re talking about a vast conspiracy.”
No, you (again) miss the point. Or you outright ignore it.
Like Davy did to Faraday, those people who have power push out all who threaten their position and power.
No conspiracy at all, simple human nature is what you people are falling for.
The insults, attempts at humiliation and outright anger directed at anyone who dares question the religion are what show it has become religion (instead of science) for those of us outside and looking in.
If the global warming position had been hundreds of years old, I would agree, but it evolved from a mere hypothesis. When enough evidence accumulated, science promoted it to a respected theory, where it stands today. Why would human nature have prompted those scientists to intentionally promote a hypothesis if they knew it to be weak? Until it was a substantial theory, there was little funding available, so that would not explain it.
No, you (again) miss the point. Or you outright ignore it.
Those in power, in control, of the IPCC simply will not allow any other opinion to be evaluated as such would remove their own power.
Like what Davy did to Faraday.
Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. And those people at the top of that organization have incredible power to influence and control public policy the world over. There may not have been as much power concentrated in one place in the history of this planet.
“Those in power, in control, of the IPCC simply will not allow any other opinion to be evaluated as such would remove their own power”. The vast majority already changed their opinion once. Now do you think they should change it back again with little to no additional evidence pointing in that direction?
No, you (again) miss the point. Or you outright ignore it.
Not talking about the “vast” majority.
Let me see if I have it straight: The vast majority agree that global warming is real, but it’s only the ones “in power” that are stifling dissenting views. Have I got it?
The vast majority DO NOT agree AGW is happening…on THAT front it is about 50/50….if you are saying the climate is changing then you will find that everyone agrees.
Change is one of those things climate does very well.
Now, like Davy did to Faraday, those in power are willing to do what they think they need to remain in power.
Including demanding that ONLY those “accepted” climate scientists be the ONLY source for THE cause, effect and ONLY solutions allowable.
As for you “getting it” I suspect you are trying, once again, to bait and switch the topic.
Like with elections coming down to who counts the votes, AGW comes down to who aggregates the data.
I previously asked you to back your assertion that it’s 50:50. I had also previously backed up my vast majority claim. I’m happy to do so again if you’re willing to back up your claim. As for getting it, I had wrongly assumed that you would not consider it possible for a small cabal of “leaders” to stymie the will of the “vast majority” of the climatologists. Wrong again, I guess.
Vast majority of climate scientists is what you keep referring. I know THAT is ALWAYS going to be spot on…THEY are all told what their papers will support, or they are invited to leave the “community”.
Even now you are conflating the the groups!
Like Davy did to Faraday, OF COURSE the powerful will keep the upstarts down.
Now I see. I’m claiming that a vast majority of climatologists subscribe to global warming while your claim is that it’s 50:50 with our citizenry. Fair enough. They’re mutually compatible. Of course, Of course, if you look at this Gallup poll, it’s pretty clear that 39 plus 25%of the people don’t know a whole lot about science (unless you’re one of the 39%). I tend to think that climatologists are a touch more knowledgeable.
Gallup’s question: Just your opinion, do you think that Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution is — [ROTATED: a scientific theory that has been well-supported by evidence, (or) just one of many theories and one that has not been well-supported by evidence], or don’t you know enough about it to say?
Supported by evidence 35%
Not supported 39%
Don’t know 25%
enough to say
I am not talking about religion….. I AM talking about the religious tools used to control that “97”% of climate scientists. That figure is maintained, in large part by threats, persuasion and outright expulsion.
Not knowing a lot about science does NOT equal not knowing about human nature.
Like Davy did to Faraday, the powers that be in the IPCC will do what they believe they must, to remain in power.
I see great comparisons to science organizations over the course of history and I see many of the same mistakes being repeated in this latest iteration of a power structure controlling the science. Rather than the other way around.
Power is corrupting and the power that organization wields is very corrupting.
The big climate “Truth” machine skepticalscience was very quick to vilify an MIT scientist who has all the creds to back his claims against the latest report from the “accepted” Ones in the fold.
Computer models need to be constantly “adjusted” to fit “preferred” theory.The lists go on and on and on.
From Boston, Massachusetts. (Another bastion of horrible conservatism, right?)
Now read what the fear mongers write about him.
Davy and Faraday….today.
“The big climate “Truth” machine skepticalscience was very quick to vilify an MIT scientist…” Since the MIT scientist and the rest of the skeptics are vilifying the majority, do you expect the majority to say northing? If the majority says nothing, people would assume the skeptics are correct. If they point out the weakness in the skeptics’ arguments, they are “vilifying” them. Free speech is not only for the benefit of small minorities.
Science predicted this before it occurred:
“…a survey of the scientific literature from 1965 to 1979 found 7 articles predicting cooling and 44 predicting warming (many other articles on climate made no prediction); the warming articles were cited much more often in subsequent scientific literature.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
These articles came long before the warming could be seen as real and significant. As a matter of fact, the Earth had COOLED slightly from 1941 to 1978, but these guys predicted the warming. They had NO way of predicting the temperature of the next decade except for their science, but then look what happened after their prediction: “Each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth’s surface than any preceding decade since 1850.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Etymology
Even if I didn’t know the science so well, it would take a lot of evidence to make me believe that these guys are fools. Skeptics, on the other hand, merely chew at the edges of a robust, well established theory. I have seen their arguments, and they are weak.
You have answered the question your mom (very likely) asked you as a child, Rincon.
“I’m not going to ask you again. … If Bob’s mom let him jump off the Empire State Building, would you want me to let you do it … What if everyone jumped off a cliff?”
Your answer is confirmed…you would say “yes” and she would have to make you cut the switch…a suggestion,,,don’t cut a thin one.
If big crowds of people start jumping off cliffs, I’ll believe your logic, The reason everyone doesn’t jump off a cliff is because very few are that stupid. In most cases, “everyone” does something because that’s the best way. The fact that “everyone” does something never proves that it’s wrong. As I said, the evidence amassed by the skeptics is paltry.
Ahh,,,but your logic is flawed.
The “everyone” you describe is that 97% of “Climate” scientists.
Since the mass population is almost evenly divided on the subject of HUMAN caused warming…the cliff divers are not evident. You are following the religious mantra as decreed by the fear mongers.
The ONLY thing that gets Lindzen such responses by those same fear mongers is he called for SLOWING DOWN THE RHETORIC!
Boston Massachusetts and MIT are apparently HUGE bastions of ultra right wing conservatism that any who express such radical views from those places simply CANNOT be believed!
As I said, given the choice of believing 97% of the climate scientists or 50% of the population, I tend to remember that 50% of the population has an IQ under 100. As for “SLOWING DOWN THE RHETORIC”, we’ve been examining this for forty years. How slow do you want it to be?
There it IS!!
Any who do not follow you over that Madoff cliff are the DUMB ONES!
Take my advice, hold on to your wallet, Rincon.
And again, a respected MIT climate scientist was just fine until he began seeing and saying things I have been calling out on this thread!
They have “vilified” him. Does this mean that they merely criticized his opinion or have they sent him to the gulag? What exactly is the crime here?
“Climate Misinformer: Richard Lindzen”
The fear mongers headline.
You’re upset because they called him a misinformer?? Big deal.
That is their way of discrediting those within the community….then the fear monger’s followers loyally hype the whole thing.
Trouble is, what the fear monger does is to go after out of context statements and comments, then lay the label of “Climate Misinformer” on those scientists not otherwise easily discredited.
By your response, they have you by the short and curly’s.
Enjoy your myopic outlook.
Meanwhile, ask yourself this. Why has the IPCC not been able to explain the growing and stable Himalayan Glaciers?
The skeptics try to discredit the “believers”, but the “believers cannot try to discredit the skeptics? I thought you believed in free speech.
As with most skeptics, you demand that a warming planet melt ALL glaciers. That isn’t at all expected in theory anyway. It is entirely expected that even though the planet is warming on average, there will be warmer and colder areas. For example, the entire arctic has gained much more than the Earth’s average. If one area gains more than the average, another must gain less, or even lose a degree or two. This could easily be the case for the Himalayas. If not, keep in mind that TWO things contribute to glacier size: Temperature and precipitation. Greater precipitation is entirely possible even if temperatures are warmer. This is the flea. The elephant is that a large majority of glaciers worldwide are shrinking. Can you explain that?
I knew you’d come up with some hogwash on that one, Rincon.
The reason the IPCC models cant explain the Karokoram anomaly is the IPCC models do not have enough “resolution”…this is only one of those little irritants that haunt the IPCC word of faith.
The answer actually comes from outside the IPCC (it does build on some of the IPCC models but takes them far further than the IPCC has even dreamed of taking them)
In this case the researchers too the models up to a resolution of 50km where the IPCC is at 210km
The result is mountainous areas being averaged in the IPCC Models which results in poor reports. Such as an unexpected Afghanistan drought the IPCC models failed to explain.
Turns out Karokoram basically benefits from year round snowfall. This is due to the sharp elevations evident in a 50km model that are averaged out in a 210km model.
As for other glaciers they have been building new ice in the last few cycles….can YOU explain THAT? I know the IPCC cannot, THEY are trying to sweep it under the water.
The computer models (even these ones at 50km) are not up to the (global) task, Rincon. These 50km models have so much detail to them they cannot (currently) be applied globally.
And the fear mongers need to slow it down or we really risk taking actions that do more harm than good.
I consider all computer models to be nearly useless. Before I try to explain why the glaciers have been building up for the past few cycles, I first would like to make sure that it is indeed true. Secondly, I would ask for your explanation.
My explanation is climate changes….human effects are minimal but present (humans are a part of the climate, as such human activity will always have some effect on it,,,then again so do earthworms.)
People are trying to predict something that is little understood (even as more and more is discovered, each discovery leads to more questions) climate is very complex and will vex the science for many generations to come.
All the science can say with certainty is what happened in the past…
If climate is indeed so little understood, how can you confidently declare that “human effects are minimal”? Do you know something that the rest of our species doesn’t?
Because the past is clearly visible to science.
Human population is only a small portion of planetary life.
So we’re too small to have an impact? That’s it? You’re supremely confident because it just doesn’t seem likely to your seat of the pants estimation that we could have any effect? The seat of your pants??
You just can’t fight pig Latin logic but oh well, I try anyway. So I suppose our nuclear weapons hold no threat either, since they’re just a small part of the planet? Besides, we already know we’re capable of changing the atmosphere because we’ve done it. We raised carbon dioxide from 290 ppm or so to about 400 and rapidly rising today. Or does that not count in your world?
Depends on what your fear mongers tell you an “impact” consists of.
Seat of my pants Himalayas, huh.
I could certainly say the same about socialism. The Nordic countries have survived it and are doing rather well, so it obviously isn’t dangerous. Don’t believe all of those fear mongers. The elite capitalists vilify anyone who questions their capitalist heaven on Earth. Hmmm..I wouldn’t have expected you to buy this kind of logic, but if you do for global warming, you will for socialism too. Relax and adapt!
We all grew up with socialism….its the fear mongering elitest misinformers who make up all the alarmist crap.
Hell, I worked for a communist party member for 12 years! He was a good employer too.
Of course he was. He didn’t think greed is good.
OH how wrong you are…not only did he grow up under Ceausescu, he “managed” the place he called his own under that system and did ok even tho they dictated his prices to him,,,monthly.
When he came to the US he (ironically) adapted to this system very nicely…and he totally got what greed was all about. He also recognized what good work was.
He sold the shopping center he owned and after all the taxes and fees were said and done walked away with 600,000 cash in hand. He has held the phone number and business license ever since but is fully retired and living on investment money…you know and hate, the type…they pay only 15% IF they have too…and he doesn’t have to very often because he is investing rather wisely…here and overseas. If it were up to you he would be paying 90% tax on money he earned over the space of 30 years at the shop keeping the business open 16 hours daily 7 days a week.
This is the person you want to “tax the begeesus out of”
I continue to say you are wrong.
I learned a lot about what it was like to survive communism from a real party member. You cannot compare a form of government to a natural process and make no mistake, climate change is natural.
Whereas you prefer to tax the bejesus out of the middle class commoner – or just let the kids worry about paying the bills.’
“climate change is natural.” Even though you have no idea what causes these “natural changes”. I guess that’s faith.
You cant read the info from the ice cores?
AND where did I say anyone knows what causes the climate to change?
Answer, I HAVE NOT made any such statement….
Twisty, thy name is Rincon.
Speaking of Ice Cores…..
A new core from West Antarctica, drilled to a depth of 3,405 meters in 2011 and spanning the last 68,000 years, has “extraordinary detail” Edward Brook.
“This abrupt, centennial-scale variability of CO2 appears to be a fundamental part of the global carbon cycle.”
“The abrupt events did not end the ice age by themselves,” Brook added. “That might be jumping the gun a bit. But it is fair to say that the natural carbon cycle can change a lot faster than was previously thought — and we don’t know all of the mechanisms that caused that rapid change.”
Hmm, fast spikes in Co2 in a centennial time frame….where have we been hearing this was not possible? Not from the researchers and scientists…that is certain….fear mongers, on the other hand……love to “jump the gun”.
Oh..go ahead and say it…humans invented a time machine and went back there to spew a bunch of Co2 into the atmosphere….!!!! HA!
This is irrelevant. Yes, climate can change rapidly with or without mankind. This is not news. I have said over and over again that no one can be sure that the observed temperature rise is manmade, but it is also equally true that no one can possibly know that today’s temperature rise is from only natural causes.
How can you possibly know that warming will be gradual and mild when you don’t know what can and cannot cause the climate to change in the first place? You apparently just know, without being able to explain your logic. I call that faith.
An example of a likely tipping point: The Arctic tundra has massive amounts of methane trapped in the ice. The ocean has huge amounts of methane trapped in clathrate (look it up). So if the Arctic icecap begins to melt, which it has, the reflective snow and ice is replaced by dark ocean, absorbing more heat from the sun, which might make the Arctic warm faster than the rest of the planet (which it has). If the tundra melts, massive methane release will warm the planet more. Clathate has the same impact. Enough methane will warm the planet, triggering more methane release, etc. in a vicious cycle. There is no question that this is possible, because the amounts of trapped methane are enough to do the job. We just don’t know how likely it is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release Please show me your calculations that render this scenario impossible and I’ll pass them on to the scientists so they can take a break.
Irrelevant….figures you would sat that. It fly’s directly in the face of your favorite fear monger cult!
I know this because the ice cores and tree rings and geologic history all show this to be true. It is you guys being all up in the face with your faith based fear mongering.
Ooo, wiki articles…open sourced writing vs the Journal Nature.
Don’t forget to tithe,,,
Yes, ice cores, tree rings, and geologic history show that climate can shift rather abruptly. I already agreed to that, so what’s the problem? Sigh, If Nature is what you want, Nature you shall have. It’s no challenge finding material from reliable sources about this because it is a well established concern. Except, of course for the antiscience far right. Sorry, that’s redundant. http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/methane-hydrates-and-contemporary-climate-change-24314790
Did you really think Wikipedia was wrong? They rarely are.
So, established that you don’t like computer models and ice core date is “irrelevant”
Historical records are not proof of the pace of climate change and wikipedia is god.
You are truly faithful.
1) You and I agree that computer models prove nothing in regard to warming.
2) Ice cores are very relevant, but I felt the article you posted was not. Sorry to upset you. I take it back and am happy to discuss it.
3) Your article did not state HOW fast climate changed in the past, a crucial omission. From Scientific American: “The climate is changing at a pace that’s far faster than anything seen in 65 million years, a report out of Stanford University says”. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/todays-climate-change-proves-much-faster-than-changes-in-past-65-million-years/ This means the odds against our present rate of change being natural are astronomical…unless you decide that Stanford U is all wrong. I’m sure you will decide that they are, but can you tell me why?
4) Wikipedia is hardly God, but they appear to rarely be completely wrong. As you saw, it was easy for me to find the same information in Nature. That’s because Wikipedia was accurate, as usual.
1) I don’t discount computer models. I don’t support the way they are being used as they are not fully capable of supporting policy decisions. The resolution issue is only a part of the problem. The tech is not capable of that resolution on a global scale and that resolution is not enough in and of itself. Again, it is the basing of policy on those models on which I take issue. The models themselves are a good way to collate and make available, at a glance, the culmination of all data leading to theory, to date. IF they are used properly…a tool is only as good as its use.
2) The article I posted is very relevant….and very new. It shows Co2 may not be the big predictor many of the theorists claim it to be. C02 May be more of a result…and methane gas too. In any case, this latest data clearly show Co2 can spike within a centennial time frame and THAT was thought impossible by your 97% consensus. Again, basing policy on a theory that claims a necessary gas is bad for the climate is not a very wise course of action.
Monitoring the levels of such a gas can be used to make some observation based on past records and data discovered, but there exists only a small snapshot of the actual history. Every discovery continues to create more questions than answers. Basing policy on this is a very bad idea.
3) Climate changing fast does not prove the theory and it most certainly does not show that ending all human Co2 output would slow it or even stop it in any way at all. Hence cutting our noses off to spite our faces is a real bad idea. If anything, humans may well need as much tech and energy as can be mustered for use in your coming apocalypse…
On the other hand, since climate is and will continue to change no matter the pace of that change, gearing up to adapt to the change in climate IS a good idea. And since you so trust that 97% consensus, even they claim we cannot do anything to slow the change. It is coming even if all human generated Co2 output were to be stopped immediately, shouldn’t you agree?
(Ironically, they tend to support my statement.)
Wiki is an open sourced collection of sources..think about what your teachers told regarding copying the encyclopedia instead of locating other sources to verify it, back in the day, when writing those wonderfully exciting reports and papers….
2) Sorry, I didn’t realize what your point was. Yes, CO2 often rises AFTER warming rather than before. One major question though, is whether CO2 rising after temperature begins to rise provides a positive feedback causing the temperature to continue rising much farther than it would have without the CO2 rise. We know that increasing CO2 will raise the temperature but not how much.
3) Dead wrong. If Stanford’s findings are correct, it virtually does prove that we are responsible for the change because the chances of it happening at this time due to chance alone are much less than 1 in100. Your only hope is the possibility that Stanford’s findings are wrong. I don’t see you disproving their findings.
“even they claim we cannot do anything to slow the change” Dead wrong again. I don’t know of any climatologist making that kind of statement. Can you find one for me or are you just assuming it? It’s pretty obvious that a CO2 level of say, 400ppm is likely to cause a lot less problems that one of 800ppm.
4) With Wikipedia, I believe my eyes. I haven’t found them to be wrong in several hundred articles. When it’s been challenged, as you just did, I have always been able to find other strong sources to back it up. Politically oriented sites, such as those of think tanks are often wrong, or at least deceptive, so I take them with a grain of salt.
Yes, the questions are large and (currently) unanswerable. All that exist are theory’s to be proven or discarded…in the history of scientific theory, how many have survived as opposed to being discarded?
The answer is a trash heap.
You need to do a search based on my statements. I will not spoon feed it.
On the second part of that;
Yes, they do claim the 100 year time frame is unstoppable…this is part and parcel in the whole faith based aspect the fear mongers like to continually harp.
You REALLY need to do a search based on my statements….IF you do an honest search, you will find they do not originate in those suspect places found on the web.
I heard on the news that the Pope agreed that evolution is “more than a theory and that it likely accounts for man’s origin. It only took about 155 years to convince the church. They could have held out longer if they claimed something about the power mongers in the scientific community stifling dissent.
What would I search? We don’t disagree on the facts.
The pope before the previous pope had the same opinion.
The that church has been waffling over the course of several popes.
It’s full of pope.
You’re right. Thanks for that. I didn’t know the previous previous Pope had already done this. This makes it not news. What, was it a slow news day or something?
I did find one fact we disagreed on. You feel that today’s rise in temperature isn’t exceptional while I do. The fact that there is a thriving market in Mammoth tusks from Siberia suggests something exceptional. They’ve been frozen for 10,000 years and today, there are so many poking out of the ice that, “Now hundreds, if not thousands, of Yakutiyan men have become tusk hunters…” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/125-mammoth-tusks/larmer-text
I’m sure it won’t change your mind, but I find it convincing. You have to melt a lot of ice to go back 10,000 years!
And don’t forget all of the frozen mammoths, mastodons, and cavemen they’ve been finding. But in truth, this only demonstrates that the Arctic is having exceptional warming. To prove it for the entire Earth, you need scientists to carefully track temperatures planetwide, like the guys at Stanford.
Exclusively human caused…not likely.
I’m not claiming that the present warming is exclusively caused by humans. Maybe it would have warmed some anyway. You of course, are claiming that no substantial part of it could possibly be due to us humans, a much bolder claim, requiring a lot more evidence.
The Stanford data suggests that the odds of it being exclusively natural are near zero. Are they wrong? It is also interesting that scientists have been predicting warming since the 1970’s, at a time when they knew that the world had cooled slightly in the previous 35 years. It was a gutsy prediction at the time. We also know with near certainty that increased CO2 does indeed cause some warming.
Saying in the face of that information that you are certain that man has nothing to do with the warming is pretty arrogant, especially when you have no evidence to support your view. You’re just saying the mountain of evidence accumulated just isn’t good enough for you. Asking for absolute proof is asking for more than what is humanly possible.
” You of course, are claiming that no substantial part of it could possibly be due to us humans, a much bolder claim, requiring a lot more evidence.”
Ahh,,,no. I am not.
Go back a re read my words. You will find I am certainly stating humans are a part of the environment, as such humans have an effect equal to the size of that part.
I am saying climate is far larger than humans…climate and environment encompass ALL of the things that drive both….to say humans are the major force behind warming is nothing less than overweenin hubris.
To claim humans can “reverse” or “repair” the climate is ridiculous on its face. Adaptation is the only course of action. And on that front all adaptation must be taken into consideration.
Including so called “green” energy.
“I am certainly stating humans are a part of the environment, as such humans have an effect equal to the size of that part.” If you could please clarify for me, are humans a substantial or insubstantial part of the environment?
“To claim humans can “reverse” or “repair” the climate is ridiculous on its face.” The Earth being round and revolving around the Sun or the Sun being 93 million miles away was once ridiculous on its face. Copernicus, et al had overcome that kind of thinking. Without evidence, your statement is as ridiculous as those of the early church.
1) you offer a hobsons choice.
2) you go Reductio ad absurdum.
Discussion this is not
I suppose this is growing old, so I’ll end it here, except please feel free to have the last word. If I understand a Hobson’s choice, it’s one of no real choice as in take it or leave it. Asking you merely to describe something as big or small does not fit the definition at all. Besides, why are you afraid to say? Possibly it was because you are trapped. If you say we’re insubstantial, that would mean I have not misrepresented your view as you have accused. If you say we’re substantial, you would be admitting that our influence is worth fixing. I’ll assume that you think we’re insubstantial. Don’t worry though. By now, we’re probably the only ones reading this anyway.
Whether I have gone reduction ad absurdum probably isn’t important because it’s recognized as valid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Although this may not have been our best discussion, I consider it to have been worthwhile. I hope you do as well. Thank you for engaging.