global warming: Why Enviros Lost the Congressional debate

global warming. Why Enviros Lost the Congressional Hearing debate
....Basically cuz they think that presenting the true facts means that they win. Silly wabbits.
A question remains. Will losing be enough to motivate enviros to change their "loser" but rightous ways? So? What are the rules of the game? What matters?
====Conservatives move to the next level of debate
notes
"ecotalk" air america Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Climate change... yesterday's congressional hearings
The science is settled. That debate is won.
therefore
debating the science is "serving conservative's need"
"quit trying to debate the [fake] science" conservatives love it.
"it is possible to for conservatives to confuse climate change issue withouthout saying anything directly false."
"Trying to pretend that we're arguing about science when what we're actually arguing about is policy, helps the conservatives.
Conservatives have already moved to the next level.
www.airamerica.com/ecotalk/
Congressional Hearings on "Political Science"
"Grist Magazine staff writer David Roberts kept a rather wily running commentary of yesterday's congressional hearings on the White House putting their grubby claws all over taxpayer-funded science. The good guys got some jabs in, but was all the "lawyering" and "technobabble" a distraction from the fact that in the only contest that really matters (Climate Change!), we're falling behind? "It was a political circus" Roberts says. "Trying to pretend that we're arguing about science when what we're actually arguing about is policy, helps the conservatives." how greens are losing [hear PART 2 ] audio links PART 1 (11 min) PART 2 (7 min)
=====================
google Results about 94,700 for grist "david roberts"
Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist
========== Ohio election workers were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for rigging the recount of the 2004
In the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County suffered serious election irregularities that worked to the disadvantage of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Among them: the purging of 24.93 percent of all the voters in the city of Cleveland, where Kerry won 83 percent of the vote; mysterious and suspect vote totals for third party candidates in majority African American wards; unexplained �security� problems that caused the last-minute shift of voting locations in the inner city Cleveland Public School polling places; improbably low apparent turnouts in heavily Democratic inner city wards, and more.
Brunner�s request for the resignations comes a week after two Cuyahoga County election workers were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for rigging the recount of the 2004 election in Ohio�s biggest county. These are the first prison terms issued in the escalating scandal over the vote count that ......... =========
--
When one gains a political certainty akin to a loyal sports fan, one has achieved the final tranquility of servitude, a joyous slavery.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, August 1, 1776

Doug Bashford wrote:

global warming. Why Enviros Lost the Congressional Hearing debate
...Basically cuz they think that presenting the true facts means that they win. Silly wabbits.
A question remains. Will losing be enough to motivate enviros to change their "loser" but rightous ways? So? What are the rules of the game? What matters?
====Conservatives move to the next level of debate
notes
"ecotalk" air america Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Climate change... yesterday's congressional hearings
The science is settled. That debate is won.
therefore
debating the science is "serving conservative's need"
"quit trying to debate the [fake] science" conservatives love it.
"it is possible to for conservatives to confuse climate change issue withouthout saying anything directly false."
"Trying to pretend that we're arguing about science when what we're actually arguing about is policy, helps the conservatives.
Conservatives have already moved to the next level.
www.airamerica.com/ecotalk/
Congressional Hearings on "Political Science"
"Grist Magazine staff writer David Roberts kept a rather wily running commentary of yesterday's congressional hearings on the White House putting their grubby claws all over taxpayer-funded science. The good guys got some jabs in, but was all the "lawyering" and "technobabble" a distraction from the fact that in the only contest that really matters (Climate Change!), we're falling behind? "It was a political circus" Roberts says. "Trying to pretend that we're arguing about science when what we're actually arguing about is policy, helps the conservatives." how greens are losing [hear PART 2 ] audio links PART 1 (11 min) PART 2 (7 min)
=====================
google Results about 94,700 for grist "david roberts"
Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist
========== Ohio election workers were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for rigging the recount of the 2004
In the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County suffered serious election irregularities that worked to the disadvantage of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Among them: the purging of 24.93 percent of all the voters in the city of Cleveland, where Kerry won 83 percent of the vote; mysterious and suspect vote totals for third party candidates in majority African American wards; unexplained �security� problems that caused the last-minute shift of voting locations in the inner city Cleveland Public School polling places; improbably low apparent turnouts in heavily Democratic inner city wards, and more.
Brunner�s request for the resignations comes a week after two Cuyahoga County election workers were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for rigging the recount of the 2004 election in Ohio�s biggest county. These are the first prison terms issued in the escalating scandal over the vote count that ......... =========

Gore said that the polar ice caps are melting faster than predicted. The problem is........Nobody can predict the future! So his premise is based on false data.

-- Snap
Hey, I eat my vegetables. Potatoes are vegetables arent' they? So I eat my French Fries and I get my vegetables.

On Mar 21, 1:52 pm, "Snap Whipcrack.............." wrote:

Doug Bashford wrote: global warming. Why Enviros Lost the Congressional Hearing debate
...Basically cuz they think that presenting the true facts means that they win. Silly wabbits.
A question remains. Will losing be enough to motivate enviros to change their "loser" but rightous ways? So? What are the rules of the game? What matters?
====Conservatives move to the next level of debate
notes
"ecotalk" air america Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Climate change... yesterday's congressional hearings
The science is settled. That debate is won.
therefore
debating the science is "serving conservative's need"
"quit trying to debate the [fake] science" conservatives love it.
"it is possible to for conservatives to confuse climate change issue withouthout saying anything directly false."
"Trying to pretend that we're arguing about science when what we're actually arguing about is policy, helps the conservatives.
Conservatives have already moved to the next level.
www.airamerica.com/ecotalk/
Congressional Hearings on "Political Science"
"Grist Magazine staff writer David Roberts kept a rather wily running commentary of yesterday's congressional hearings on the White House putting their grubby claws all over taxpayer-funded science. The good guys got some jabs in, but was all the "lawyering" and "technobabble" a distraction from the fact that in the only contest that really matters (Climate Change!), we're falling behind? "It was a political circus" Roberts says. "Trying to pretend that we're arguing about science when what we're actually arguing about is policy, helps the conservatives." how greens are losing [hear PART 2 ] audio links PART 1 (11 min) PART 2 (7 min)
=====================
google Results about 94,700 for grist "david roberts"
Gristmill: The environmental news blog | Grist
========== Ohio election workers were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for rigging the recount of the 2004
In the 2004 presidential election, Cuyahoga County suffered serious election irregularities that worked to the disadvantage of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Among them: the purging of 24.93 percent of all the voters in the city of Cleveland, where Kerry won 83 percent of the vote; mysterious and suspect vote totals for third party candidates in majority African American wards; unexplained "security" problems that caused the last-minute shift of voting locations in the inner city Cleveland Public School polling places; improbably low apparent turnouts in heavily Democratic inner city wards, and more.
Brunner's request for the resignations comes a week after two Cuyahoga County election workers were each sentenced to 18 months in prison for rigging the recount of the 2004 election in Ohio's biggest county. These are the first prison terms issued in the escalating scandal over the vote count that ......... =========
Gore said that the polar ice caps are melting faster than predicted. The problem is........Nobody can predict the future! So his premise is based on false data.

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science -- Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

"Snap Whipcrack.............." wrote

Gore said that the polar ice caps are melting faster than predicted. The problem is........Nobody can predict the future! So his premise is based on false data.

A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society - Englands foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 5. -----------------------
There is no reliable way of predicting how temperatures will change in the future. The climate is so complex that it is hard to predict what might happen. The IPCC�s climate scenarios are developed by economists not scientists and are often misleadingly presented as predictions or forecasts, when they are actually just scenarios � the most extreme of which are totally unrealistic The IPCC�s findings are dependent on models that are badly flawed. No climate model has been scientifically validated. The IPCC 2001 predictions showed a wider uncertainty range than that in earlier reports.
Climate change is complex and not easy to predict. In order to make projections about climate change in the future, the IPCC developed a set of scenarios that describe possible global emissions of greenhouse gases. These scenarios produced estimates of various concentrations of global greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere up to 2100, taking into account different projected trends in demographic, economic and technological developments, as well as changes in the political environment. Economists and sociologists helped to develop these scenarios. These scenarios include the whole range of likely changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.
In the studies cited in the IPCC 2001 report, the main tools used to describe the detailed response of the climate to any given future scenario of greenhouse gas emissions are numerical models that include mathematical descriptions of physical processes and the interactions between different components of the climate system. Because the models are based on scenarios of future human activities, their results should be considered to be projections rather then predictions.
There has been, and continues to be, a major effort to compare the details of climate model results with actual observations. This leads to improvements in the representation of climate processes in the models.
The IPCC 2001 report included results from these models showing that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would increase to between 540 and 970 parts per million by 2100, compared to 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times, for the whole range of emissions scenarios and allowing for uncertainties in the models.
According to the models, changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would affect global average temperatures during the 21st century. They suggested global average temperatures would rise by 0.4 to 1.1 centigrade degrees by 2025 compared to 1990, and by 1.4 to 5.8 centigrade degrees by 2100. The report pointed out that this rate of warming would be �much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century and is very likely without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years� based on measurements from ice cores and other sources of information about past temperatures.
The increase in temperatures would be above the global average on nearly all land areas, particularly in the high northern latitudes during winter.
The range of changes in global average temperatures was higher in the IPCC 2001 report than in previous assessments mainly because the models included a better representation of interactions within climate systems, and because a greater range of emissions of greenhouse gases were incorporated into the scenarios. The models cited in the IPCC 2001 report also included assumptions about a lower concentration of particles of sulphate in the atmosphere, which reflect back some of the incoming radiation from the sun, due to larger controls on air pollution.
The IPCC 2001 report openly acknowledged uncertainties in modelling climate change in the future. It stated that �because of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, and uncertainty about the geographic and seasonal patterns of projected changes in temperatures, precipitation, and other climate variables and phenomena, the impacts of climate change cannot be uniquely determined for individual emissions scenarios�.
Critics of the IPCC have not offered alternative numerical models that give different results for how climate will be affected by the range of possible future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

On Mar 23, 11:39 pm, "Vendicar Decarian" wrote:

"Snap Whipcrack.............." wrote
Gore said that the polar ice caps are melting faster than predicted. The problem is........Nobody can predict the future! So his premise is based on false data.
A guide to facts and fictions about climate change - The Royal Society - Englands foremost Science Establishment
Misleading arguments 5. -----------------------
There is no reliable way of predicting how temperatures will change in the future. The climate is so complex that it is hard to predict what might happen. The IPCC's climate scenarios are developed by economists not scientists and are often misleadingly presented as predictions or forecasts, when they are actually just scenarios - the most extreme of which are totally unrealistic The IPCC's findings are dependent on models that are badly flawed. No climate model has been scientifically validated. The IPCC 2001 predictions showed a wider uncertainty range than that in earlier reports.
Climate change is complex and not easy to predict. In order to make projections about climate change in the future, the IPCC developed a set of scenarios that describe possible global emissions of greenhouse gases. These scenarios produced estimates of various concentrations of global greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere up to 2100, taking into account different projected trends in demographic, economic and technological developments, as well as changes in the political environment. Economists and sociologists helped to develop these scenarios. These scenarios include the whole range of likely changes in emissions of greenhouse gases.
In the studies cited in the IPCC 2001 report, the main tools used to describe the detailed response of the climate to any given future scenario of greenhouse gas emissions are numerical models that include mathematical descriptions of physical processes and the interactions between different components of the climate system. Because the models are based on scenarios of future human activities, their results should be considered to be projections rather then predictions.
There has been, and continues to be, a major effort to compare the details of climate model results with actual observations. This leads to improvements in the representation of climate processes in the models.
The IPCC 2001 report included results from these models showing that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would increase to between 540 and 970 parts per million by 2100, compared to 280 parts per million in pre-industrial times, for the whole range of emissions scenarios and allowing for uncertainties in the models.
According to the models, changes in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere would affect global average temperatures during the 21st century. They suggested global average temperatures would rise by 0.4 to 1.1 centigrade degrees by 2025 compared to 1990, and by 1.4 to 5.8 centigrade degrees by 2100. The report pointed out that this rate of warming would be "much larger than the observed changes during the 20th century and is very likely without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years" based on measurements from ice cores and other sources of information about past temperatures.
The increase in temperatures would be above the global average on nearly all land areas, particularly in the high northern latitudes during winter.
The range of changes in global average temperatures was higher in the IPCC 2001 report than in previous assessments mainly because the models included a better representation of interactions within climate systems, and because a greater range of emissions of greenhouse gases were incorporated into the scenarios. The models cited in the IPCC 2001 report also included assumptions about a lower concentration of particles of sulphate in the atmosphere, which reflect back some of the incoming radiation from the sun, due to larger controls on air pollution.
The IPCC 2001 report openly acknowledged uncertainties in modelling climate change in the future. It stated that "because of uncertainty in climate sensitivity, and uncertainty about the geographic and seasonal patterns of projected changes in temperatures, precipitation, and other climate variables and phenomena, the impacts of climate change cannot be uniquely determined for individual emissions scenarios".
Critics of the IPCC have not offered alternative numerical models that give different results for how climate will be affected by the range of possible future concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.