Lorax, Hartmann's Screwed

[ccbatson]

Thank you for referring me to this book Lorax. I am not through it yet, but so far, it is a very rich collection of material as follows:

1. Without evidence of any sort, the opening attack assumes the myth of manmade global warming to be a fact. Too bad, this was written and published before global cooling started.

2. The claimed fall of American society followed, and is the result of the fall of Russian communism from losing the cold war. IOW, had they won, we would be better off according to Hartmann.

3. Our founding fathers were villains elevated by revisionist history to eclipse the real heros...."radical revolutionaries sacrificing for the common good".

What a great start, more to come as I go through the material [[which, for the first time in my experience, the author refers to as "very fine material"...a bit insecure are we Mr. Hartmann?)

You did read this didn't you Lorax?

Once I finish, or sooner if you like, per your proposed bargain, you are obligated to read the book/books I recommended. I look forward to your thoughts on them.

[ccbatson]

A bit more swill here....It seems Hartmann's own revisionist history includes inserting the term "middle class" AS HE DEFINES IT into the mouths of the framers and into the constitution.....A class system is a concept absent that of a free and civil society that honors individual liberty as its' highest value and therefore does not appear in our constitution.

He [[Hartmann) also presumes to read the minds of "the cons" as he calls them in proclaiming that they believe a free market means no government...the exact opposite is true and can be found ubiquitously in even the most basic of economic texts written by conservatives [[ie Milton Freidman).

[ccbatson]

In Chapter 3-4 he worships FDR while continuing his own mythic belief that conservatives are anarchists. As such, no option in between Statism/collectivism [[his ideal) and limited self government for the sake of individual liberty and property rights exist.

Also quite clear is the fact that now...given the catastrophe of Obama's radical socialist agenda, we know, once again, that socialism/collectivism/statism do not work.

[rb336]

Thank you for referring me to this book Lorax. I am not through it yet, but so far, it is a very rich collection of material as follows:

1. Without evidence of any sort, the opening attack assumes the myth of manmade global warming to be a fact. Too bad, this was written and published before global cooling started.

ya know, i was going to give you the benefit of the doubt for a while, but you have truly lived down to my expectations of you. If the first thing out of your mouth is a bunch of misinformed wing-nut propoganda, why should anyone give you any credence on anything?

....It seems Hartmann's own revisionist history includes inserting the term "middle class" AS HE DEFINES IT into the mouths of the framers and into the constitution

this is just funny, as you are the master of giving definitions that have little to nothing to do with the actual meanings of words

[jiminnm]

Rb, global temperatures have been cooling since 2000, primrily due to reduced solar activity. That's a fact, not propoganda.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

[gazhekwe]

According to the article, 2008 was one of the ten warmest years since 1880, all of which occurred between 1997-2008. That is not so cool. The base line has been climbing since 1980 and has not come back down to 1980 levels, it is still at the top of the chart.

Global warming could still be happening even with a cycle of cooling temps. See, we have had cyclical weather patterns as long as weather patterns have been recorded, and tree rings show evidence of such cycles centuries into the past. But the levels of the cycles may change. Colder cycles could still be warmer than past cold cycles, which could still indicate a general warming trend, or global warming.

It takes looking at more than whether we are sweating in the heat or shivering in the chill today to decide global trends.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "Global warming could still be happening even with a cycle of cooling temps."

So "Global warming" could be happening no matter what is happening? I think this is a case where a few over-excited researchers took a little bit a data and went way too far with it. The media carried the torch. Are our emissions having an affect on the ecology? Probably. Is it as profound as many try to make it? Probably not.

[gazhekwe]

Sstashmoo, look at the chart in the article Jim posted. The temps have not come down to normal levels, nowhere near. Once they get back to levels similar to 1880-1980, then you will have my complete agreement. Yes, it was cooler last year. Yes, it was still substantially warmer than the first 100 years of record keeping.

[rb336]

The world in 2008 has been cooler than at any time since the turn of the century, scientists say.

Cooling La Nina conditions in the Pacific brought temperatures down to levels last seen in the year 2000.
The World Meteorological Organization [[WMO) notes that temperatures remained about 0.3C above the 1961-1990 average. Computer models suggest that natural cycles may cool the Earth's surface in the next few years, masking the warming impact of rising greenhouse gas levels.
from news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7786060.stm

in other words, stash, a cooling cycle may begin, creating a situation where some will say "see I told you" even though the temps are still higher -- like 2008 cooling from the previous years do to La Nina, but still being in the top ten.

I think this is a case where a few over-excited researchers took a little bit a data and went way too far with it

not a few, not too far. thousands of peer-reviewed articles.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "in other words, stash, a cooling cycle may begin, creating a situation where some will say "see I told you""

And a cooling cycle IS happening and many are saying it doesn't mean anything.

Who knows? and that is the problem, nobody really does.

[jiminnm]

You're exactly correct Stash, no one really knows if the earth is or is not in a long term warming trend, or why it is or isn't. Consensus is not science, and the correlation of increased "greenhouse" gases may or may not be causation.

For example, many years ago, Milankovitch posited that the earth goes through warming and cooling cycles due to eccentricities in the earth's orbit and tiny shifts in the tilt of earth's axis. His model accurately corresponded to temperature changes over the last 450,000 years and has been embraced by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Perhaps this is what is happening [[and perhaps these changes are related to polar shifts, a phenomenon that wasn't known when Milankovitch developed his model - we'll have big fun if that happens).
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Fea...nkovitch_3.php

Lastly, for one to be convinced that global warming is happening, you must believe that the actual temperature data collected to provide the basis for the theory are valid. I suggest some research into how those temps have been and are actually gathered.

[Sstashmoo]

I would lend much more credence to this whole "Global warming " phenomenon if their weren't so many trying to cash in on it. i.e. Goldman/Sachs-Carbon credits. Then one must ask, like the Arab world and all those bad guys over there, again, why are we the only country that is so keen to do something about something? I just smell a huge scam. Think rolling blackouts- Enron and Oil crisis - Oil industry.

[gazhekwe]

About that part, I agree. Look at the whole asbestos thing, and now radon. We treat the stuff like we will spin around on our heels and drop over dead if we get anywhere near the stuff, and we have to pay and pay to get rid of it. Many beautiful old buildings are standing empty because of asbestos. And here you have generations of people born in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s who were raised around asbestos in their homes, schools and office building, who are not somehow all dyijng of mesothelioma. Forty years of Pipefitters were among those most exposed to asbestos dust. I can find sites discussing the dangers of their exposure but none with actual statistics. Asbestos miners, pipefitters, plumbers and cement workers might have the highest exposures and most danger, but history has so far shown that just being in a building with asbestos will cause little or no harm.

We need sensible approaches that get reviewed frequently for impact and viability, not for profit to some newly created industry.

Who is most concerned with preserving asbestos programs, why the asbestos abatement industry, of course.

[rb336]

Stash -

what we have is a progression upward that is temporarily easing off due to known and expected phenomena. All this was predicted by many of the legit GW papers. If you start climbing a mountain, and have to head down a gully before the final assent, your overall trip is still a climb UP.

and stash, the people who do the research supporting GW, who have been doing so for 20-30 years, are not being paid by Goldman-Sachs. however, virtually ALL the "skeptics" have financial ties to the fossil fuel industry or its lackey, the heartland foundation [[those brilliant "scientists" best known for still claiming that smoking cigarettes isn't harmful)

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "If you start climbing a mountain, and have to head down a gully before the final assent, your overall trip is still a climb UP."

If you're descending into a valley and have climb over knoll on the way down... If one thinks about the age of the earth and the brief window of data they are using to make their determinations, it's real sloppy science. Researching for "20-30 years" woohoo, the planet by all estimates is many millions years old, see what I'm getting at? I remember when they were talking about the new ice age. Earth was going to freeze over again, because we are moving further away from the sun...

The point I'm trying to make is, The solar system, earth and it's atmosphere is not as understood as they would have you believe. I remember when they first started monitoring the ozone and a hole was found over one or both polar caps. It was determined immediately this was because of air pollution or chlorofluorocarbons. Without any data or history to base it on. Now it has been determined, the hole has probably always been there. At least that's how I remember it.

[rb336]

you have obviously not read much REAL info on the subject. I suggest you start with http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462

The scientists involved are looking at data over a multiple hundred thousand year time frame

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "you have obviously not read much REAL info on the subject."

You're right, I haven't.

[cheddar bob]

Quote: "you have obviously not read much REAL info on the subject."

You're right, I haven't.

Yet it hasn't stopped you from injecting your opinion into everything, as if we should somehow give a shit what your [[admittedly uninformed) opinion is.

[gazhekwe]

That initial graph in the article Jim posted is a perfect picture of a climb up a mountain. You go up and up, then down, then up and up and up, then down. You never get back to the starting altitude but keep climbing higher and higher.

[Sstashmoo]

Cheddar if you were intelligent enough and you are apparently not, you'd have detected the sarcasm.

Quote: "You never get back to the starting altitude but keep climbing higher and higher."

Since you can predict the future, how about the lotto numbers for tomorrow?

As I said a while back, and a few here popped a gasket over it, Science doesn't always get it right. And keep in mind, many Scientists/Climatologists scoff at the THEORY of global warming.

A thread like this never solves anything, some are convinced man is destroying the planet, some are convinced the jury is still out. I'm in the latter group.

[ccbatson]

Next up, Hartmann refers to Edwin Burke as a father of conservative ideology which "many cons believe in". He then goes on to take things from Burke out of context and ascribe them to modern day conservatives. More specifically, that conservatives believe [[like Burke) that the founders established this country in order to allow an aristocracy [[he calls it a corporatocracy) to control the middle class.

First, no conservatives I know follow Burke, and certainly not on these misrepresented beliefs. Second, he ignores history when it comes to socialism and its' track record every time it becomes the dominant economic system of a nation [[it fails).

Well...Lorax...more than halfway through the book that you challenged/wagered with me to digest, and not a peep out of you yet.

[rb336]

Yet it hasn't stopped you from injecting your opinion into everything, as if we should somehow give a shit what your [[admittedly uninformed) opinion is.

no, my opinion is not uninformed. that is why I can link to real science to back up what I say, rather than the pseudoscience crap spewed by the heartland organization and their minions

[rb336]

Next up, Hartmann refers to Edwin Burke as a father of conservative ideology which "many cons believe in". He then goes on to take things from Burke out of context and ascribe them to modern day conservatives. More specifically, that conservatives believe [[like Burke) that the founders established this country in order to allow an aristocracy [[he calls it a corporatocracy) to control the middle class.

First, no conservatives I know follow Burke, and certainly not on these misrepresented beliefs. Second, he ignores history when it comes to socialism and its' track record every time it becomes the dominant economic system of a nation [[it fails).

Well...Lorax...more than halfway through the book that you challenged/wagered with me to digest, and not a peep out of you yet.

perhaps, bats, because you have yet to comment with anything resembling validity

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "ALL the "skeptics" have financial ties to the fossil fuel"

I'm not a skeptic, rather a realist that does not sign off on every doomsdayer that comes along. As long as fossil fuels carry the most bang for the buck, they will be the energy of choice. We simply have NOTHING equal to replace them with. Nothing even close. It's going to take more than a slight trend in temperatures, or as we're seeing now, simple fluctuations to convince everyone that relies on these fuels, to stop using them.

[sarge]

First, no conservatives I know follow Burke...

True that. Hell, most conservatives I know have never heard of Burke and are only as conservative as the Limbaughs of the world want them to be on any given day.