White House issues new dire climate report: Scientists: Extreme weather will worsen if pollutants aren't curbed

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

DIRE and EXTREME in the title.

[nowhereman 1]

DIRE and EXTREME in the title.

If you have nothing worthwhile to add then you are just trolling.

[GaryC 7]

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

Blogs and unreferenced research doesn't count

Do I have to quote myself? Look at post 96. Jeez.

Gary, you're being oddly defensive considering most other times you'd just as soon copy and paste. I'm calling you out on this. Find a reputable source that defines scientific theory as just an idea as you claim....that it's not rooted in fact.

I cited a reputable source. Are you that dense? A theory is an idea that explains observations. It isn't facts, it's an idea (theory) that could explain what could be happening. If it were hard facts it would be a scientific law. You just don't want to understand.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A theory is an explanation of a set of observations. It could be right or it may not be right. Once the theory has been proven by testing and verification it becomes an axiom or law. There have been many theories that have been proven wrong. Try looking it up for a change yourself.

Since you claim to be big on proof and facts, back your claim up with a source. It's odd that here is the one time you haven't copied and pasted something.

Try looking up.

Blogs and unreferenced research doesn't count

Do I have to quote myself? Look at post 96. Jeez.

Gary, you're being oddly defensive considering most other times you'd just as soon copy and paste. I'm calling you out on this. Find a reputable source that defines scientific theory as just an idea as you claim....that it's not rooted in fact.

I cited a reputable source. Are you that dense? A theory is an idea that explains observations. It isn't facts, it's an idea (theory) that could explain what could be happening. If it were hard facts it would be a scientific law. You just don't want to understand.

Wall, meet Gary. Gary, meet wall.

[GaryC 7]

and for the record, Gary...

HAL has a master's degree in a scientific discipline and is currently working on a doctorate degree at an Ivy-level major research university in science. That means people like HAL are trained in reading scientific articles, how to dissect the information given, and spot flaws in the author's arguments.

...which goes back to my argument. I think it may take God Himself to reach down and press you under His thumb before you come around to accepting the scientific consensus of Global Warming. In the meantime, the world with not wait for you...we're already addressing the issue on a global scale.

That is what he says. I would have to see his diploma before I would believe it. No reputable scientist would skim a long and technical study that was peer reviewed for 5 minutes and declare it invalid. His own preconceptions overrides his credibility. If this is an example of how scientists work then it does explain how we got this "consensus". At best he is a bad scientist, at worst he is a bald face liar. I have zero respect for him after that.

[Peikko 1,575]

Consider this. If you are wrong Gary, the consequences are, well somewhat tragic. If the climate scientist are wrong, what exactly do you lose?

Most of the measures that are being looked at to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have positive effects on the environment, decrease waste and eek out a finite resource. I can live with people not being completely convinced that we know exactly what the climatic future holds, but I find it really hard to understand why anyone would resist sensible change in human behaviour to protect the environment. I guess I do not get why you are so angry at this perceived conspiracy and I guess I trust bodies like the UK met office more than the skeptics.

[GaryC 7]

Consider this. If you are wrong Gary, the consequences are, well somewhat tragic. If the climate scientist are wrong, what exactly do you lose?

Most of the measures that are being looked at to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have positive effects on the environment, decrease waste and eek out a finite resource. I can live with people not being completely convinced that we know exactly what the climatic future holds, but I find it really hard to understand why anyone would resist sensible change in human behaviour to protect the environment. I guess I do not get why you are so angry at this perceived conspiracy and I guess I trust bodies like the UK met office more than the skeptics.

The "cure" would cause even more economic harm than we are experiencing now. Cap and Trade is such a stupid idea it boggles the mind. It will harm the poor and middle class in ways that make the current recession seem like a party. Sure the climate is changing, it always changes. But I would literally bet my life that man isn't causing that change and I would also bet that there is nothing we can do to change it. There are much more important issues that we can change than this.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Consider this. If you are wrong Gary, the consequences are, well somewhat tragic. If the climate scientist are wrong, what exactly do you lose?

Most of the measures that are being looked at to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will have positive effects on the environment, decrease waste and eek out a finite resource. I can live with people not being completely convinced that we know exactly what the climatic future holds, but I find it really hard to understand why anyone would resist sensible change in human behaviour to protect the environment. I guess I do not get why you are so angry at this perceived conspiracy and I guess I trust bodies like the UK met office more than the skeptics.

Hmmmm, no. All the technology that is being considered is expensive, and of dubious neccessity. The solutions that are readily available, and viable, as an alternative to carbon technologies, are being taken off the table, such as nuclear power, and hydroelectric power. Power generation sources that do not provide continous output, must be supplemented by those evil carbon releasing generation systems, and have their own enviromental concerns.

It's all a hippie feel good scheme. Engineers have a saying. "Well, the scientists were wrong about that one too, as usual."

Edited June 19, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I cited a reputable source. Are you that dense? A theory is an idea that explains observations. It isn't facts, it's an idea (theory) that could explain what could be happening. If it were hard facts it would be a scientific law. You just don't want to understand.

Gary, I posted that at the time you posted yours, but thanks for the insult. That source did not support your claim that a scientific theory is just an idea...that is simply not accurate.

Here is a good explanation: (see the part in red...that's all I need to prove your claim that there is no concensus on Global Warming. All scientific theories are generally accepted to be true because of the process of peer review....but read on so that you might have a better understand of just what a theory is in science.)

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

• Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
• Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
• Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
• Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
• Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
• Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

[GaryC 7]

I cited a reputable source. Are you that dense? A theory is an idea that explains observations. It isn't facts, it's an idea (theory) that could explain what could be happening. If it were hard facts it would be a scientific law. You just don't want to understand.

Gary, I posted that at the time you posted yours, but thanks for the insult. That source did not support your claim that a scientific theory is just an idea...that is simply not accurate.

Here is a good explanation: (see the part in red...that's all I need to prove your claim that there is no concensus on Global Warming. All scientific theories are generally accepted to be true because of the process of peer review....but read on so that you might have a better understand of just what a theory is in science.)

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law describes a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the atomic theory, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.

A theory is developed only through the scientific method, meaning it is the final result of a series of rigorous processes. Note that a theory never becomes a law unless it was very narrow to begin with. Scientific laws must exist prior to the start of using the scientific method because, as stated earlier, laws are the foundation for all science. Here is an oversimplified example of the development of a scientific theory:

Development of a Simple Theory by the Scientific Method:

• Observation: Every swan I've ever seen is white.
• Hypothesis: All swans must be white.
• Test: A random sampling of swans from each continent where swans are indigenous produces only white swans.
• Publication: "My global research has indicated that swans are always white, wherever they are observed."
• Verification: Every swan any other scientist has ever observed in any country has always been white.
• Theory: All swans are white.

Prediction: The next swan I see will be white.

Note, however, that although the prediction is useful, the theory does not absolutely prove that the next swan I see will be white. Thus it is said to be falsifiable. If anyone ever saw a black swan, the theory would have to be tweaked or thrown out. (And yes, there are really black swans. This example was just to illustrate the point.)

http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm

Forget it Steven, you just don't want to understand. What I posted was correct and now your playing semantics. A theory isn't proven and isn't fact. Only scientific law is proven. Many theories have been proven wrong.

[GaryC 7]

Fortunately most Americans reject the idea of Cap and Trade. Let the GW nuts rant. The people will not let Cap and Trade come about.

Zogby poll: only 30% of Americans support cap and trade

30 04 2009

The Zogby poll results mirrors the recent Gallup poll It’s the economy, stupid. Even so, with opinion on Cap and trade in the minority it seems plans are in place to move forward.

On Earth Day, Secretary Chu warmly embraced the administration’s cap-and-trade proposal, stating, “We must state in no uncertain terms we have a responsibility to our children to curb emissions from fossil fuels…”

Q. President Obama wants to impose cap-and-trade laws that would limit the total carbon dioxide emissions allowed to be released into the environment. These laws would turn carbon dioxide into a commodity allowing those that pollute less to sell credits to those that pollute more. These credits would be traded on commodities markets. According to congressional testimony given by the Director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “decreasing emissions would also impose costs on the economy – much of those costs will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher prices for energy and energy intensive goods.” Some have estimated these costs to be $800 to $1300 more per household by 2015. Knowing this, do you support or oppose cap-and-trade laws?

Support 30%

Oppose 57%

Not sure 13%

Q. Which course of action should America take with regards to energy

policy?

Make energy cheaper by developing all sources of U.S. energy, including coal, nuclear power, offshore drilling and drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 54%

Reduce America’s production of fossil fuels that might cause global warming 40%

Not sure 6%

The O’Leary Report/Zogby poll was conducted April 24-27 of 3,937 voters nationwide and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 1.6 percentage points. Slight weights were added to party, age, race, gender, education to more accurately reflect the population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/30/zogb...-cap-and-trade/

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Scientific Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

Forget it Steven, you just don't want to understand. What I posted was correct and now your playing semantics. A theory isn't proven and isn't fact. Only scientific law is proven. Many theories have been proven wrong.

I've just proven your claim that there is no scientific consensus on Global Warming. Unless you are now saying that Global Warming is not a theory, the above makes it as clear as crystal that all scientific theories are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole...ergo, consensus. That's not semantics...that just good logic.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

DIRE and EXTREME in the title.

If you have nothing worthwhile to add then you are just trolling.

Well, your useless comment added no value.

[Peikko 1,575]

Money is pretty useless in the face of the problems the human species faces, whether you believe this rapid global heating as man made or not. I am looking for much more long term solutions and have little to no interest in bringing back an economy that is based on the fallacy that the human species requires ever expanding consumption to gain happiness.

Hippy? It is nothing to do with being a hippy and everything to do with hoping for a sustainable socioeconomic structure.

[NickD 203]

Totally disregarding global warming or climate change, since 1973 when our nation has faced that so-called energy crisis, it's been all downhill for us since then. We were no longer an independent nation. Cheap cars and gas destroyed our public transportation system and our traffic jams today are a major crime, and HC's are the true hidden form of cancer, heart attacks and strokes.

With this global economy, not only lost of our jobs, but have over 14,000 huge container ships polluting our oceans so just a handful of us can get super rich.

I am personally affected with a thing called MCS, multiple chemical sensitives caused by that constant 3-8 hours of driving in Chicago traffic, got myself the hell out of there and lost a bunch of co-workers even at a young age due to either accidents or strokes. Besides that, our major cities are decaying, Milwaukee use to be a very clean wonderful city, now gang ran with filthy streets.

Gasoline is a filthy fuel, take your engine apart and see why, carbon everywhere, EPA has made these damned things so complicated, average person can't do any repairs, and the emissions have only improved a minor tad over what they use to be. Major change today, is if a sensor is bad, your car won't run period. One way to get it off the road.

36 years went by since the energy crisis, paying 15 times more for natural gas, comparing that to the minimum wage, that has only gone up by a factor of three. Health cost is not the only problem. For these 36 years, wars, not for freedom, but for oil, we cannot dictate why we buy, our government has determined that, and for 36 years, they haven't done a God damned thing.

Screw this climate change or global warming stuff, what we are not doing and have not been doing is killing us much quicker. If we can correct this to improve our lives, retarding global warming if such a thing exists will also be corrected.

While the history books may claim our civil war freed the slaves, feel technology had more to do with that like the invention of the cotton gin. When human labor is cheaper than energy, we will be slaves. Am a slave already, to the vehicles I own, always something going wrong, either a slave by repairing them myself or a slave working elsewhere to pay someone else to repair them. A huge chunk of our paychecks go into these damn things and not even tax deductible, plus that are using the resources we need to survive, like burning up all of our oxygen.