GM Exec Stands by Calling Global Warming a "Total Crock of Shit"

American people are really ignorant people and are swade by the news media and the people with the money to sway the media. If you look at whats really going on, the US is being sold off by bits and pieces by our government and millionairs so they can get richter. China is now oil drilling 300 miles off the Florida coast and due they care about the Florida coast line? How many major products are made in America and how long will they last before they move to another country for cheaper labor. Global warming may or may not be happening, but there are people out there making on money on what they want you to believe. We should stand together as a nation and not be devided by money talking.

Why is it that the Republican Party is blamed for the inability of some Americans to embrace the concept of Global Warming? For God's sake... do your own homework on the subject matter before you begin to finger point. I am really sorry that Al Gore is your hero, but I have breaking news for you... He is a millionaire. And guess how he got that way? Right! By lecturing on Global Warming! I say "Hats Off" to Bob Lutz for not being a part of the problem. A spade is a spade, and he called Global Warming one. I hope he makes a trillion dollars for not conforming to the common political view. Want to buy a Toyota? Well, I say, go ahead. The Japanese will be blessing you!

DAR999 - Kem and I got into it based on our approach to the global-warming issue. Although I think we both agree on the cure, we differ on our coniction toward the disease. While I agree that we need some inertia to overcome our oil-based society, I also believe that oil and car companies are looking to how they can stay viable in a changing world. This includes investing in research to look at alternative transportation systems. I am sure that some executives are in denial mode, but others are forging ahead. There are lots of reasons to wean off of oil, and our probable contribution to global climate change is one good reason. Where Kem and I disagreed was on the way those that are suggesting alternate hypotheses for gobal warming are treated. If they are basing their hypotheses on evidence, then I am willing to listen. I do not buy into science by concensus or expert opinion. I am looking for evidence-based theories. Most important discoveries or theories were devised by a single scientist that did not buy into the concensus opinion. I have run into this personally, and overcoming the inertia of dogma is a large obstacle to innovation.

Sorry to stir the pot there Mr. Obvious and KEM just got a little out of hand I guess. Of course all are not morons I just wish people would understand the whole issue before bashing others or buying a Prius and thinking they have made their contribution and live in ignorant bliss. Shouldn't make this political but the real root of the problem is too much of our politics in this country is centered around oil therefore most in politics don't want oil to go away. What needs to happen is our government needs to take a stand and say we are going to commit to hydrogen or natural gas burning engines (I believe they have the technology to make both available in one engine but not totally sure about that). This is the cleanest we have although not totally "green" but as close as we have right now. By doing this the automotive makers will not be running in 20 different directions but one or two and thus the advancements to make it more economical and efficient will come sooner. Right now car makers are going down all avenues because they are not sure which one will end up being the chosen one. Unfortunately with the gov't not making the path clear it will end up being what they can sell to the public which is less likely to yield the best result than the gov't. if you can believe that. The decision also needs to be made by the gov't. that by XX date all gas stations will be able to sell either natural gas or hydrogen because without a distribution network noone will buy the darn things. But the gov't. won't do that because there is still too much money to be made on oil. It a shame really.

Recently I read that a single car uses an industrial swimming pool's worth of water in the manufacturing process. We can't drink a car. We need water for life.

I see someone, with a brief snotty comment, disagrees with me, that we must stop burning coal and oil, or we will destroy our atmosphere. And also evidently that person disagress, that I don't agree, that EVERYONE who posted comments here is a moron.

I said I believe you are not totally correct DAR 999, that was my opinion and I was not being rude about it. "Green" vehicles using green energy for fuel, is what we DO need. A Prius is better than a gas guzzling SUV, ___ that's MY profile__ I suppose, if one wishes to call that type of anopinion or thinking is a "profile".

I don't believe you would disagree that we need to convert totally to clean energy and vehicles, would you ~Dar999~? Of course some would wish to start a crappy pissing contest here once again, those types who use sophism to elevate their ego, may show up and come on with some childish, idiotic crap, in an attempt to disrupt a fair debate.

DAR999 - Watch out! You hooked a live one and he fits the profile.

You are not totally correct ~DAR999~ the "green" vehicles do emit far less carbon emissions and Co2, which is the major problem with our atmosphere, burning fossil fuels. So if the electricity came from a nuclear or hydro-electric plant to charge the batteries, overall the Prius would be far better than a gas gussler.

I do believe that most of the people who blogged here, minus the ignorant trolls, are fully aware that we must stop burning fossil fuels and especially use it to produce electricity or fuel our vehicles and they are not morons. I and many others here promote the use of TOTALLY clean energy and I for one don't consider nuclear clean enough, in that the deadly waste by-products and the mining uranium are also a threat to our enviroment.

If we ever do have totally clean energy, and that must be done, then the green vehicles will have to be produced and utilized also, or we will not solve the greenhouse effect in our atmosphere.

Most of you bashing this are ignorant just like most of the population and I'll tell you why. Because you think hybrid electric cars like the Toyota Prius are better for the environment. Its typical of the general public to not understand a situation completely before forming an opinion. You see, most of the electricity being generated is through fossil fuels such as oil and coal so when you plug your "green" car in to recharge it your really adding to the problem in a different way. The root of the problem is that its about marketing and public opinion, right or wrong so car makers like Toyota sell you "green" cars because you'll buy them not because they are better for the environment.

Morons.

Write this word 500 times Kem._______(soplist).

sophist,sophist psophist sophist sophst sohist sophist. soplist. Oops. I'll do it wher no one cna see itt.

And I thank you kindly too ~BILL~, even though we always 'respectfully' disagree on the nuclear power issue, and debate that issue in a sensible and friendly often jokingly manner, as I believe it will be far better to go the clean and safer energy route to eleminate the need of burnig fossil fuels. Your posts are alway informative ~Bill.~

~Billy_y 4~ I see by your Feburary 25 7:38pm post to the soplist here, that you are ENTIRELY in agreement with ME, stating that global warming is our most serious problem and indeed the methane in the Arctic is a most serious problem as the tundra thaws, both there and in Siberia. Funny he would insult me and thank you for saying the same things.

I also wish to thank ~Namaste~ for his well written post on Feb 27, 1:18am, where he put the ~Lizard~ in his place and stated that any barbs and insults direted to ones like the Lizard were fully justified and the reasons why they are.

I would not have argued with any other fool like the Lizard for such a length of time, had this thread not been buried in the archives for the past four days.

Bill - Thanks for the help on the global warming issues.

Kem - Now we all know where you stand and how you operate. I am sure that others have their opinion of me also. We both have earned those opinions. Not much left to say. You certainly have passion!

Bye

Edit?

You DO take exception to personal attacks? __ My my, that is very humerous. Perhaps you should read YOUR blogs here on this thread. ___ You're the crock of shit Mr. Obvious, not global warming.

For example, in your last blog, you state:___ "The claims of methane burps in the past are not provable due to the state of current technology." ___ That sentence alone, PROVES you are just a (blathering idiot). Therefore, I will end this sensless discussion with you, as you are no longer worth my time. You don't debate, you argue with nonsense and insults.

You first came on here as not sure of the global warming and the very possible methane burp disaster. You asked for assistance and when offered, you refused to even discuss it. You then became an expert and offered links which say the same thngs I and others have said about the issue. Then you defend an obvious detracting fool, Lizard, and say I should not criticize him nor be rude, that is not nice in your opinion. Then YOU turn around and sling insults and write rude and insulting remarks about me. It is obvious that you're nothhing but a blowhard and a stuffed up jerk-off.

I don't care what you think about global warming, or the methane in the Arctic. There are over a thousand other scientists who have the near identical opinions of the man I quoted. But they must all be wrong acording to you, Mr. Obvious. Piss off, you incredibley ignorant soplist. ___ ~BYE, bye~ ___ I am done with you here, rave on all you desire.

P/S, yep, soplist is the incorrect spelling, my speling often sucks. But you are aware of what I maean and you definently are one.

Kem - By the way you use the term "soplist" three times as an insult to me. What does this mean? You can't simply be trying to call me a "sophist"? Insulting me while demonstrating you ignorance would be too apropos? "Soplist" must be some internet acronym that I am ignorant of? Please enlighten me.

OK Kem, I'll try to use little words. Atcheson makes claims in a short tabloid blurb. He references none of these claims but predicts bad things. The makes claims of bad things happening in the past which have been suggested by others but are not provable due to the state of current technology. The jounal paper that I cited above explains this. The same claims concerning methane burps were made about the end of the last ice age, but these claims are testable. The paper is a balanced one that actually critiques the data supposedly disproving the methane hypothesis. It is the balance and scientific rigor of the paper that sets it apart from the tabloid article. Atcheson may be absolutely correct and have plenty of science to back up his claims, or he may be like the authors in this same tabloid that claim to have been abducted by aliens. One cannot tell from the article or its venue. Furthermore, I am not defending the ideas of any of the posters here, but only their right to their opinions. I do take exception to personal attacks. The metane hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis like the ice-age and meteor hypotheses for the 50-million year-ago extinctions. What is pretty certain is that human activities have and will continue to affect climate. Different senerios for how this will play out are however open to debate. This is what some of the bloggers were trying to do. When you start attacking those that disagree with you favorite hypothesis and scientist/paper, then you lose all credibility. Maybe you should run for president where credibility doesn't matter so much!

Also, I would refer you to NAMASTE's blog Feb 27, 1:18am, and his evaluatin of the Lizard. Also Chucksan's very appropriate remarks in respect to Lizard. There were others.

Are you in love with the Lizard Obvious? __ "Too shay".

You ask me to please offer an opinion on the link you offer, but have continually 'refused' the same of me, even though you asked for the article I was quoting. And once again, you failed to reply to anything I just wrote about the 1,000+ Arctic methane gas articles.

As far as questioning Lizards intelligence, that is self evident by his wild posts and his rather obvious lying about his elevated qualifications, ___ as also noted by others.

When you decide, (if ever), to debate the Arctic methane gas issue, I will open that link you just offered, but I was not talking about any ice age, if that is what it is about. You don't realize you are a soplist do you?

Pesky details are pretty dangerous if your blowing smoke. Here is a link to a paper that covers the details. It explains why the last ice age is relevant to today because it allows a testable hypothesis to be explored. Again the conclusions are not certain, but the consequences of error are clear. I suggest that questioning lizards intelligence, calls into question your self confidence. Why must you bring others down to raise yourself up. We all bring perspective. While I do not agree with your methods, I respect your right to have your point of view. Please give your report on the following article, but stop to think this time. What are you trying to prove? Click on "view entire article".

http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/pc1caek85ngxfb0k/

If you ~Obvious~ or anyone, would "Google Arctic methane gas", you would discover there are more than a 1,000+ articles published on the subject. I didn't read all of them, I read ten of them.

I liked the one by Atcheson, because of his status in the scientific community and his well written article, which covers the issue very well. I have read one article where the auther disagreed with him on a few points he made. I would tend ot believe most of the thousand plus articles do agree with him, that opinion based upon their titles, which warn us of the dangers of the potential Arctic methane release. Many of those Arctic methane gas articles are published in scientific journals BTW.

You are a confirmed soplist OBVIOUS, a very strange person and the type who have insured the global warmng issue is controversial, you don't come across as bad or ignorant as the Lizard, as you're obviously more intelligent and know how to decieve better than he does. You are more dangerous to the world's societies than he is, if you keep it up.

How do you know if his paper was reviewed or not Obvious? And after all, Atcheson was once the president of the U.S. Geological Society. A pretty prestigeous scientific outfit I would say. Of course you likely would disagree with that opinion also.

Why start some more crap ~Obvious~? NO, I am not in love with Atcheson. I agree with his opinions. So do the scientists who wrote the article you posted, so do thousands of other sicentists agree with him. I just used that one article as an example, there are hundreds of others I could have used. You had asked me three times where I got my information, as you disagreed with me.

You never have debated the issue, refuse to either read tha tartilce and make fun of it because it was published in a paer you find ot be unworthy. Yet you claim you are unsure of global warming, would like to have help in understnading the issue and the threat of the methane gas release, or "burps".

Yet instead of a sensible adult conversation or debate, you just keep coming back with silly posts such as the one you just posted and have told me to grow up. Okay, debate the tabloid piece you offered, it says essentially the same thing John Atcheson says but his article is far more detailed and his published book even more so.

Kem,

I said that I have no problem with articles in any forum, and you are welcome to rely on tabloids for your science. I elect not to engage in a scientific debate around a tabloid opinion piece. It may in fact be accurate, however I would prefer to look at more credible sources of scientific information. Are you in love with Dr. Atcheson? You correctly point out that I am a different sort than most of the bloggers here.

~Obvious~ Let's see, you accuse me of spending my time arguing with you about global warming and the human role in it. That was not what I have been primarily arguing with you about. I have been arguing with you about your refusal to discuss what John Atcheson says about the subject of the methane burps and what will transpire if they occur. And he and many other scientists say they will occur and I agree with them. Even the National Geographic link you posted states that. You refuse to debate that issue and instead have offered links on the methane burps and even then offer no opinion on the links you yourself offered.

You also say you don't have a problem with articles in any forum, but made fun of the fact that Atcheson's article was merely published in the Baltimore Sun and here at Common Dreams. You kept asking for proof that humanity is causing global warming but when such is offered to you, you refused ot read, discuss, or debate those experts. I think you understand what the term Troll means in yours and Lizards case. You also may note that almost everyone who blogged here disagrees with you.

He seems keen on distinguishing between his stated opinion and what GM is about to offer product-wise. Well then, maybe he should keep his ignorance to family and friends and not go showing it off to reporters.

Kem - I have no problem with articles in any forum. I have an issue with the use of articles in newspapers being used as the primary literature to support a scientific point. Scientific principles are reviewed before being printed in scientific journals and certain lay-science magazines like National Geographic (although sometimes not very well). Your confrontational style is what works agianst you. You spend your time arguing with me about global warming and human's role in it, as well as its negative consequences when we basically agree on these things. My issue with you is your black and white certainty about these things when the experts aknowledge the uncertainty. Whether global climate change will turn out to meet these exact senerios is debatable, but your insistance that you "know" what will happen simply works against those trying to lessen our impact on the likely senerios. It is your methods that I have issue with. By the way, it seems like major publications will print this stuff, just not with a hysterical/sensational tone.

By the way, does TROLL stand for Truth Reveals Obstinate Little Lies? Does it mean "one who throws sand in the gears of machines designed solely to produce smoke? If you want those with influence to take you seriously, you need to aknowledge both the strengths and weaknesses of your arguments. The report posted by Bill (way back) does this, and is thus convincing.

Hey Obvious I read the National Geographic link. Thanks. It states about the same thing Atcheons does. They say 50 million years ago there were giant burps of methane and that's so. It killed off the dinasours in a few days time then.

They say it likely occurred in peat bogs in Europe and it probably did. The Arctic was frozen then. Now the Arctic is thawing and the next time it will likely burp out of there. they say it may occur again. Why didn't you say so, or comment on the article Atcheson wrote?

Why did you ask me what article I was referring to Obvious, if you were not intending to read it and honestly debate it? Do you have some problem with articles published here at Common Dreams? Do you think any of the major American papers would print that article? Like they print articles of truth about nuclear energy, Bush, etc. The only reason the exchanges have been idiotic, is because you made it so BTW.

Nope Lizzy, your're wrong again and I do believe far enough others here pegged you for what you are. Both you and Obvious here fail to address anything of substance and refuse to debate the subject in an adult manner. You are both proving what you are. Nothing bothers me liz, I'm perfectly relaxed "doctor", except for the off chance some may possibly believe your comments. I really don't beleve that is likely however.

Doc, you really should go treat some patients, you have been here all day again on other threads, spewing your BS.

Patrick: You got lizarditis. Relax a little.

Kem - I must admit that I neglected to include the Baltimore Sun and Commondreams when I did my literature search of scientific papers on methane gas and global warming. How could I have missed these landmark papers? I hope those following this idiotic exchange can forgive me.

I refered to the article I posted for you, as you asked. It is well written by a very highly regarded scientist. That article was also published here at Common Dreams and is in the Dec, 2004 archives. Are you purposfully being obtuse? Save it if so, for you don't bother me with your nonsense.

If you wish to argue with John Atcheson about his report, let's hear it. He has also published a book on the subject. In addition, there are many other articles there on the subject, which agree with him and some disagree.

What you should acknowledge is this, wheter you do or not, is no concern of mine. What John Atcheson warned us about, is already occurring. There are hundreds of NOW dry lakes in the Arctic, and methane gas is escaping from those dry lake beds during the summer months at an alarming rate. No massive methane "burps" as yet, but we may expect them to occur at any time. So you read what you wish and I will do likewise, since it is already clearly obvious, it is now beginning to happen, I will believe methane gas release is a most serious issue. you may do as you please of course. ~Bye~

Kem - Do you refer to the article in the pestigious journal "The Baltimore Sun"?

I posted that at least three times here. Do you have a reading disability? __ Many do. __ MAYBE YOU'RE HARD OF HEARING. ___ I'LL SHOUT IT FOR YOU ~MR. OBVIOUS~.

GOOGLE, ARCTIC METHANE GAS. WHEN THE SCREEN OPENS, SCROLL DOWN TO THE ARTICLE TITLED, "ARCTIC BURPS, A TICKING TIME BOMB". It is about what transpired 50 million years ago and is re-occurring today.

Kem - As I asked above, what is the journal article that you are refering to? Where did this scientist publish his paper?

More on methane burps from National Geographic (I am sure that they are just corporate pawns too)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/09/070919-warming-bogs.html

I'm quotng scientist like John Atchuson on the issue, it is not my opinions. Why do you refuse to argue his findings?

If I offer an opinion of who I believe is the best choice for a president, that's a personal opinon, but not one based upon scientific evidence.

And no OBVIOUS, the article you are quoting is not at all what John Atcheson is saying about the methane gas. 90% of life was not eradicated on Earth 12,000 years ago, it was 50 million years ago, and that will happen again according to Atcheson. Argue his scientific opinions, he is the one I am quoting. I read the article you posted, you refiuse to comment on the one I offered and then offer any sensible arguments or comments. Who needs to grow up here?

Kem - I believe that human CO2 production is likely to be a significant contributor to global warming. I do not know this. The methane experiments, as stated in the Science article, supports that the catastrophic death hypothesis has holes. While the work deals with the last ice age, the implications are far wider. The ice has melted a few times in the last 50, million years without wiping out all life. This gives me pause to wonder where all the methane went during these thaws and what effect it had on life on this planet.

Your insistance on the certainty of the situation is what gives you little credibility. Grow up! You sound like a preacher not a scientist.

You see MR. OBVIOUS, the methane release from the Arctic which killed off over 90% of all life on this planet was 50 million years ago. That is going to occur again and very soon, if we don't stop burning fossil fuels. You come back with a link about methane gas releases of 12,000 years ago, which was not the one that killed off most life on Earth. What is your point?

Your point obviously is, you wish to deny global warming is a fact and it is being caused by humanity this time. Now for a logical person and one who really wished to learn, as you state you do, you would take the five to ten minutes time required to read Dr. Atcheson's article and argue HIS points if you didn't agree with him on the subject. For he was not writing about the comparitively mild methane gas release of 12,000 years ago. Different subject OBVIOUS.

Your feeble argument and attempt to prove a point, is like comparing a person who had skin cancer and it was easily treated, and another had skin cancer which was melanoma which quickly spread and killed him. Not really a good argument on your part bud. In fact it is pitiful.

You don't frustrate me bud, I'm laughing at your ignorance and how you show it. I think it's a riot, this is lots more fun than Jay Leno or Saturday Nite Live. My entire argument has primarily been about the release of the methane gas in the Arctic, caused by global warming, which will kill all of humanity, includng your children if you have any, and you won't reply to that.

What was the journal refrence again? Its frustrating when you can't just stomp your feet and get your way, isn't it?

Okay here's a theory that may convince you. (Ice will melt when the temperature rises to a certain degree of temperature. __) Is that a fact? Well___ maybe. To test the theory, take an ice cube out of your freezer, place it on a plate and set it on a table in your kitchen. Wait an hour, then check and see if the ice turns to water. If it does, it will prove the theory. You didn't answer with an opinion on that article,___ you dumb ass.

Methane burps from the journal Science:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-08/osu-sro082106.php

A couple pesky details. Evolution is a theory. In biology there are no laws (unlike physics). When a hypothesis passes the test of time it becomes a theory, which is the highest status that can be obtained in biology.

As far as statistics, one tries to disprove a null hypothesis. One does not prove anything with statistics. One rejects the null hypothesis with a level of certainty (probability). In this case the null hypothesis is that the earth is not warming due to human-generated CO2. Type I error is rejecting this null hypothesis when in fact we are not causing global warming (typically set at 5% for biology and 1% for medicine). Type II error (or power) is accepting that we are not causing global warming when in fact we are. If your going to give a statistics lesson, you need to check your text books. This is why I question evrything said here.

HI ~Chucksan~, yes it was 50 million years ago, a giant asteroid struck the earth and that event plus a massive eruption of a monstrous volcano, released huge amounts of methane gas and that was the end of almost all life on Earth. A huge methane release had occured once before that time period, many millions of years ago.

It is by far our most serious problem and the global warming IS thawing the Arctic tudra, unless we alter our use and burning of fossil fuels, it will happen once again. It could occur in less than ten years time.

I too have traveled extensively, once lived in Ill, NY, PA, NJ, Mich, Ohio, Maine, Colo, Ariz and have spent a total of five years in Japan, Taiwan and SE Asia. I was an IG inspector in the Satregic Air Command for five years, so I naturally have a suspicious mind set at times I suppose.

Apparently Lizard is really lost by reading his latest comment. (the mad scientist) He started it with me again today on another thread of a like subject. Funny, he posted over 80 blogs total on several different threads on Monday alone. Can't wait until he's a retired doctor.

Thank you for your comments and have fun here at CD. ~Kem~

Evolution , like gravity is not a theory, it is a fact. Darwin wrote a theory on species differentiation through natural selection. It is the mechanisms by which evolution takes place that is debatable. The existance of evolution is as undebatable as the existance of gravity. These are just facts.

KEM PATRICK

It's Charles from pretty much everywhere. Lived in the Bay Area (both north and south of SFO) for 20 years. Moved to the Pacific Northwest in 1986, and then to Texas in 2005. Also lived in New York for ~15 years and Illinois for seven years. US Army for six years - 82nd Airborne.

Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, etc. I traveled a great deal in both military and civilian life.

Re. KEM PATRICK, I try to give people the benefit of the doubt unless, of course, they're obvious - like the lizard. Perhaps KIM is a little emotional and quick to jump. We'll see, and over time make a judgement.

BTW, I recently watched a History Channel program that went into great detail about methane "burps". If memory serves, there have been two catastrophic occurances. Not sure of the dates but I think 50-million and 260-million years ago.

And yes, Dr. Atcheson's article about Arctic Methane Burps gives me pause. Thanks for directing me to It.

Thanks for the positive feedback re. my posts. It's appreciated, as are your posts.

Your posts are among the best Chucksan. But I do believe Obvious is another well disguised troll.

Is that Charles from San Francisco? Just guessing.

Obvious,

BTW, did you check the link provided by EPHRAIM?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ,

Sorry for the typos in the previous comment. I'm rather tired.

Mr. Obvious

I'm sorry that you completely missed the point of my post of the 26th. Since you seem to be an intelligent person, I must assume my written communication was deeply flawed. So, please bear with me and allow me to try again.

I'm not suggesting faith-based or religon-based anything. Perhaps my use of Pascal's Wager was not appropiate.

I think you'll agree that every decision we make has consequences. Further, every decision we make, in sweeping terms, turns out to be either right or wrong - regardless of the consequences or lack thereof.

Enter Experimental Design and/or basic statistics. And, please don't take my word for what follows. Rather, I suggest a review of the following reference materials:

a) "Statistics for Experimenters", Box, Hunter, and Hunter and/or,
b) any book titled, "Elementry Statistics" (refer to the chapter(s) discussing hypothesis testing).

Every experiment begins with a question. Usually, the investigator formulates a hypothesis. Data of some sort (relevant to the hypothesis or not) is collected. The data is analyzed and the investigator decides whether his hypothesis is supported by the date. I.e., the hypothesis is true or false. (Sometimes there is insufficent data upon which to base a decision.)

Notice that I haven't said that the right question was asked, or the correct data stream(s) selected, or the correct measurement method selected, etc.

Did the investigator decide correctly? How confident is he? If he wished to have a 50% confidence level that his conclusion was correct, he could have simply tossed a coin and saved all the effort. 70% is better, but not really all that great. Most researchers in the medical field use a 95% confidence interval. That is, in a typical paired comparison they're sure they have decided correctly 95 times out of 100.

I must now say that the data can support the hypothesis and the conclusion may still be completely wrong in the real world application. Data will support that the sun rises AS (or slightly before)the rooster crows. That's correlation. The rooster does not CAUSE the sun to rise. That would be causation. Big difference.

Finally we get to the crux of this dirge. There are TWO types of errors encountered in hypothesis testing.

TYPE I ERROR: Accept as true when false.
TYPE II ERROR: Accept as false when true.

If I accept the AGW hypothesis as true and take action when the hypothesis is actually false, there are consequences. Perhaps large. Perhaps small.

If I reject the AGW hypothesis as false and take no action when the hypothesis is actually true, there are consequences. Perhaps large. Perhaps small.

Either way there is risk and consequence. So, place you bets.

I hope, Mr. Obvious, that this post communicates my thoughts more clearly to you. If not, all I can do is offer ten thousand gomens.

Thanks to Bill who posted the ICPP report. It's about 78 pages long, but, for me, well worth the read.

Had to step over a great many lizards to join the discussion. But as I said, don't feed the trolls. Put another way, learn to recognize dog excriment and walk over it, not in it. No need to get exercised. Just smile when you encounter it and walk around or over it.

So tell us ~Obvious~, what is your opionion of Dr. Atcheson's article about the Arctic Methane burps? Pretty scary huh? .
.
.
.
Oh, nooooo, don't tell us you didn't bother to read it. ___Too complicated?

Yep, I always thought you were a gal Nam. Whatever, you are one fine writer.

namaste - Your cool! Hopefully I have not insulted you with my pathetic copycat crime.

The "I" that matters is far beyond the touch of mere words, and I have no desire to stir additional conflict. Mr Obvious is on target about playful massaging of screen names, as my intent was to draw attention to what might be missing.

Perhaps it has been my vociferous support of woman's issues that has lead KEM to suggest my being of the fairer sex, which is hardly anything to be concerned about, in fact, it pleases me in a ALL-inclusive manner. My wife at times is more masculine than I, and it creates a balance in both of our lives.

And KEM, Booboo and I are now off to visit the picnic grounds for snarfing up some some grub(s). If I were more of a yogi, I'd be less of a bear.

Namaste

Kem - Your intelligent friend started the play on names (which by the way, I thought was pretty clever), so why is my play on her name bring out your very clever response? Mr. Oblivious is a pretty clever and funny play on my handle. If you want to actually influence folks, you need a little more self control. We agree on what needs to be done. It is our approach that differs. I assume folks are interested and honest. You see those that ask questions as the enemy.

Kem - CO2 as a driver for Global warming is not a fact. The experts do not suggest this. They say that it is a high probability, just like evolution. It is actually the acknowledgement of the authors of the IPCC report at the link posted by Bill(http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-ts.pdfP) that uncertainty exists that made me seriously consider their opinions. When you claim that this is a fact, you loose anyone who understands science. As others have said, if this is a real possibility, then we should act. Oversell it and kiss off anyone with a logical mind.

As a tangential thought: Don't confuse education with knowledge, knowledge with intelligence, or intelligence with wisdom. Wisdom is rare without experience. Some critics have heard this type of fanaticism before, and are expectedly skeptical.

You should pay attention to NAMASTE BTW, instead of insulting her name. _____ She's LOTS smarter than the average bear. Never mind, you are another asshole, obviously.

It was not your intelligence I questioned OBVIOUS, it was your questions and comments. You kept asking them, but never ONCE argued the opinons of the true experts, those whom I and others quote. In addition, it was not just I who challenged Lizard, but it is I you take unbridge with. Go back and read the over 300 posts and perhaps you can discern that and also see how you seem to be wishing to protect the troll, ___ which makes you suspect also.

The fact is Obvious, global warming is a fact, if we don't fight it, humanity is history. There really is no argument and no reason to debate the issue. It is only important that we attempt to fight the denyers and help people who are un-aware, or unsure educate themselves. That's all Al Gore did with his film. Then too, it is human nature for many humans to deny that they have a serious problem. People do not wish to hear the truth about global warming, they fear it. People who are insane realize it, but seldom if ever do they admit it.

Nimwaste - well you sound like a manager...

Mr Oblivious

By way of comparison, there's a long held management belief that a "good" manager is essentially just a people expert and doesn't really need to understand the theories and details of what those he supervises need to know to complete their tasks. As long as a "good" manager can discern if people are lying, he should be able to manager "well".

Technical issues are both complex and complicated, and much waste and ineffective leadership results from management by those without any of the requisite depth of knowledge to comprehend what the critical issues are, especially when the sources of information that they choose to prioritize (as better) come from yes-man brown-noser dilatants, looking to make the boss feel good (instead of supporting him to make the correct but challenging decisions needed).

Of course an open discussion is valuable, when one assumes that people all bring along the similar goal of an objective mind expanding investigation of the issues. But, when people come into a forum with an agenda, it does take the other objective participants additional effort to separate out the wheat from the chaff, and this is OK up to a point.

When someone's agenda goes so far as to actually thwart an open discussion, and just add sand to the gears, those people are beyond minor irritation - and rightly are labeled as saboteurs and trolls.

It is all about tolerance of another's beliefs and respecting and trusting in people's common desire to share openly and honestly. When one violates those norms, there are natural consequences: anger, shunning, combative attitudes, …

Kem - I guess we cannot all be a genius like you. You are very impressive. Someday maybe I can get past my 9th-grade intelligence level.

MR OBVIOUS et al.

There is a major difference with a person who offers substancial arguments on an issue and one who 'pretends' to be an "expert" and then offers technical data which is pure bull shit and tends to confuse the layman, as CHUCKSAN so well put it.

Like you OBVIOUS are obviously confused by the issue, for to tend to sit on the fence, ask questions that sound like those of a ninth grader and evidently have not taken the five minutes time to read the true experts reports on the subject of the methane gas.

There are no "two sides" to the issue Mr. Obvious. The results of burning fossil fuels are clearly obvious. The only reason there appear to be two sides is because of denyers and phony "experts" like the Lizard, who is nothing more than scum for attempting to do what he is doing on the most importnat subject and issue facing humanity. You should get yourself educated, ___ and beware of the lizards. ~Bye~

Kem et al.,

It is interesting that you are advocating that critics should keep quite, lest they cause controversy. By the same standard, you should not argue with those that think we should keep burning more and more fossil fuel. Appearently this is how most Americans feel, considering their auto-buying habits. I think that telling critics of the global warming mainstream to keep quite does far more to damage the credibility of the scientists that support this hypothesis/theory. Why would a solid theory fear an open discussion of strengths and weaknesses. This is similar to those that believe that the theory of evolution should never be challenged. Healthy discussion will only further strengthen a good theory. While I ascribe both to evolution and human-exasperated global warming, I was far more critical of the role of human-produced CO2 in this process before reading the paper at the link provided by Bill. While I question the value of time spent in these electronic discussions, a couple good posters can make this worthwhile. Fortunately, some posters are not intimidated by bullies. I am far more interested in hearing both sides and making up my own mind based on the evidence, compared with reading the comments of the "true believers" that blindly accept the latest liberal "color of the month".

lizard - I also believe in God, but that is where my faith ends.

LIZARD -- We've all gone a long way, just end up back at the beginning:

Shit is as shit speaks

Thanks Chucksan for your summary

Tell you what, Doctor PHD, Scientist, LIZARD, lets quit pussy footing with it and make it number FIVE. As evidently you didn't catch my meaning when I said I would never call you a moron anymore for there is no reason to do so. That's because it is self evident that you are one, no one has to say it.

As ~Chucksan~ so aptly put it, implying you are a damn liar, and I agree fully with that, I will also state you are a friggin nut case and harmful, in that your intentional lying posts are harmful. They cause controversary on the most serious subject and issue humanity faces. ___ Get lost "Doctor" Lizard. Oops, I mean "Scientist" Lizard now. Your last few posts gave you away big time Liz. ___ Take your wife's advice.

Materialists never stop learning, to stop learning you need a God. That is why Americans are so ignorant.

Yeah, I'll agree that going from religious to spiritual is a step up. I remember being very spiritual AND an atheist. I did enough of it. Moved on. How about taking another step up? Wanna be a materialist?

lizard - Please try and keep it together. the world is maddening but keep it together. There is a difference in being spiritual and being religious. If you believe is right and wrong then you have faith in something that cannot be proven. Asking questions is not a crime and don't ever let someone tell you it is. The bloggers on this web site do not represent the majority. We are just a silly set of folks seeking some interaction to resolve our uncertainty. If you know you are right, you have stopped learning. We cycle between giving up and having enough energy to keep trying. You just may need a rest. I frequently do.

Number 3 Mr. Patrick? Sorry, really am. So it goes.

You need help Liz, proffessionl help, you have lost it.

Chucksan: You gave me the biggest laugh of all. I will wait to see if you have anything to say. I studied to expand my mind, not to look good to you. In fact, I am used to being on the outside. There is a simple way to determine if I am a real scientist or not. I am an atheist, like almost all scientists. Did you know that 95% of top scientists are atheists? I don't believe in the sanctity of degrees. Tell me you are an atheist and I will see you as intelligent, tell me you believe in God and I won't.

Mr Patrick: one more comment about my time spent blogging. My wife agrees with you, she feels she has lost me. It's that 1 million Iraqis that bugs my ass.

As a scientist, i don't bow to titles, so forget the M.D Ph.D, I revealed it because it was relevant in a post and I was asked, by you, about my credentials. Throw the degrees out and judge me by what I say, not by my degrees. I know, I am a crackpot and a fool because I don't kow tow to the official line. Do I need to tell you that I was never treated this way by scientists? Scientists wear stained lab coats, not pristine coats like "doctors". They present in jeans and t-shirt. They are my people, and we always focused on what was said, not who said it. Nobel laureates have been more respectful of me than some people here have. Doesn't bother me at all, it isn't my problem.

As for the subject of global warming. I seek refutations; vacuous ruminations are of no use to me at all. I love being wrong (scientist), when you are wrong you learn, when you are right you learn nothing. I was excited when Billy y4 gave me the address to that report. Unfortunately, careful reading of the report showed me huge problems with it. I'll try to figure it out myself because I am not getting much help here.

mr.Parick, we have many common points and 2 significant difference: I believe 9-11 was done by the USA and Israel. You believe the official theory, if I read you right. The second, so far, is this one. 9-11 is clearer to me. It has to be a demolition. Global warming by human action is less clear. I now believe there are two sources of global warming, pollution and the sun. The important one is the sun. Sorry.

I agree we shouldn't play with fire and must change our ways. I am ready to pay for more expensive gas, and I am ready to personally sacrifice for this endeavour.

As for being banned from Information Clearing House ( I am proud of this ban) and having posts deleted: There are 2 things the censors and some posters will not tolerate, and that is not showing deference to religious beliefs, and dissing the troops. I won't repeat what I said so I don't get deleted. As you know, i don't hurl insults and I do try to be polite. But insults are OK,apparently, just stay off the troops and don't tell people their religious beliefs are objectionable. Isn't that supremely American?
If I am a neo-con troll, Nader is a corporate stooge. Thanks for the laugh.

As for medicine: Doctors who practice in a classical way are dying. In Quebec we are now 5%. The system has raised our fee because they don't want us to disappear. It will not work. I am already half way out because you have to practice McDonalds medicine to make good money. I feel this degrades MY quality of life. i left science for famil;y reasons, but also because I missed being with regular people. i am glad I did, because I was a classical researcher and they are no longer welcome. Science is going the McDonalds route also. I am , however, very happy with my work.

Mr.Patrick: I have been blogging furiously for 6 weeks, (hadn't blogged before), mostly because of 1 million dead Iraqis. I don't feel that being a doctor means I have to study all the time or work 16 hours a day. I find these times are critical, don't you?

Chucksan,

I love your analogy to believing in God for insurance. I am sure that God is impressed that you acknowledge him just in case he might exist. As long as you keep your poker face, I am sure he'll be fooled. The analogy to religion is interesting. If you believe in global warming out of faith, then you don't need evidence. This is the nature of faith. I also think that global warming is a complex problem without simple answers, but this does not mean that simple questions are not worthy of answers. Are you afraid that the emperor has no clothes?

Having read 336 comments thus far, I want to express my deep appreciation to most of the posters. And, I'd like to single out UBREW and EPHRAIM for special mention. They've added much light to the discussion.

Paraphrasing UBREW (my biased interpretation): why would we lend credence to lizzard and pdf for their advanced high school algebra calculations and disregard the IPCC studies. The IPCC studies that involved so many scientists and required such huge super-computer capacity to calculate the models. Think about it. Yes, computers are not infallible (GIGO). But do you folks really think that lizzard and pdf have the capability to individually aquire the necessary data needed to even begin an assessment of global warming? Assuming, of course, that they know which data are needed and that these data will lend themselves to their high school mathematics. I suppose when you're only tool is a hammer, all the problems appear as nails

Well done to EPHRAIM who provides a link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See." It's a great presentation (about nine minutes) for those of you who are not practiced in the craft of Experimental Design. The video presenter shows a basic a 2x2 Latin Square layout, one of the most fundamental experimental designs. He doesn't call it a 2x2 Latin square because his presentation is quite obviously meant for laypersons. That's a good thing. I recommend the video to laypeople, scientists, engineers, and techicians of all stripes.

In the context of global warming, EPHRAIM's video presenter uses the Latin Square to amplify on something known as Pasqual's Wage which I will summarize (poorly) as follows. If god exists and you don't acknowledge/believe in god, you are in big trouble. But if god doesn't exist and you acknowledge/believe in god, you have simply wasted your time (in more ways than one). The consequencs of not believing in god when god actually exists are catastropic. Alternatively, the consequences of believing in god when god doesn't exist are trival, at best. Now, place your wager.

Stated another way, you don't purchase fire insurance because you want your house to burn down. You purchase it so that in the unlikely event your house does burn down, you will not suffer catastropic consequences. Global warming and the destruction of your home by fire share risk (probability of the specific outcome) and consequence (cost). The decision to buy or not buy insurance is yours. Watch the video and draw your own conclusions. You don't need a scientific or technical background to understand the presentation. And, you have the analytical ability to draw a rationsl, intelligent conclusion.

Note that I don't champion a position one way or the other. I want you to trust your basic reasoning ability and decide for yourselves.

As for lizzard and pdf, I think you'll conclude, after watching the video, that these two are a complete waste of time. It seems to me that neither sheds light on the subject at hand. Rather, I think they both try to spread confusion among non-technical readers. Present a few terms here and a few terms there and viola, mission accomplished. And, from my viewpoint, their presentations are rather pitiful at that. Like George W. Bush...all hat and no cattle (or brain for that matter - but that's another subject).

Having spent 40 years in semiconductor R&D and engineering, I smell a rat. I don't believe for a minute that Lizzard is an MD, nor do I believe he has a Phd. In fact, based on the nature of his posts, I doubt if he a degree of any kind. Based on his posts I would venture the opinion that he is a PASSIVE-AGRESSIVE, neo-con troll. Possibly not. But then again, based on his posts, why waste your valuable time on him by reading or responding to him? As for pdf, I don't think he's as accomplished as lizzard. Definetly not as accomplished a passive-agressive. More of a fellow traveler. Again, a waste of time. Like all one trick ponies, there's nothing else to see. From either of them.

Basic rule: don't feed trolls.

~Obcvious~ to answer your questions, if you would take the time to just Google those subjects, you would find that using clean re-newable energy is absolutely no problem for the planet's enviroment our our dying atmosphere and oceans. ___ Burning any fossil fuel is. ___ Check it out if you are sincerely interested.

Questions such as the ones you just asked, only tend to place doubt in some peoples minds, which is what the Lizard does. Are you by any chance, another Lizard?

Well ~Lizard~ you are a mystery to me. For example, __you are a practicing doctor. __ I was just reading on another thread, the one about Cuba and Castro, where you wrote, you just had a patient, who asked you why he had to sit for eight hours before you could see him. That really got my curoisity elevated. Why would a practicing doctor, spend several hours a day blogging on the internet???

So I went to the Common Dreams archives and discovered, you have over 200 blogs posted in just a few days time period. In one, it is noted you were banned from another site, because you were considered to be a neo-con troll.

Anyway, it seems very strange to me, for a practicing doctor, to have the time to blog comments on the internet. It is not just on this thread that you are writing numerous comments, you have done so on several others yesterday, a Monday and today, another work day. Golly, it is no wonder one of your patients had to wait eight hours before you could see him, you spend most of your time, blogging comments on the internet or figuring complicated math problems and Common Dreams is not the only site you comment on.

You are one of about four others who commented here on this thread, who disagree with the author and over a hundred other bloggers about the global warming issue. You have posted 60 to 70+ comments and argued with several others on the issue. Don't you have any sick people up there in Quebec? __ Or do you just treat mental patients? Just wondered, you are a mystery to me.

BTW, when you are doing your math equations, when not typing commments, don't forget to figure in the loss of rain forestation. That's quite important in the global warming issue, considering the forests are being burned, not just cut down. That factor might give you the correct figure you are vainly searching for, and factor in the decline of the ocean's phytoplanton also. It is complicated isn't it doc?

Anybody ever calculate how many wind farms and machines to harness the waves we would need to provide people with their energy needs? How would the transfer of mechanical energy into electrical energy and then into whatever we eventually use it for, affect the planet. Are wind and waves important to climat? Are we trading one problem for another? Is it possible to extract energy from coal without releasing CO2 (and other pollutants) into the air?

Mr.Obvious : Your concern is the reason this is being pushed so hard. I too am tempted to let it be since it will take us in the right direction, but I do want to know what is going to happen to me.

No, it isn't necessary to get into complicated calculations, it depends on the question you are asking. Ask a simple question. Its simply a matter of scale. At 80% absorption (realistic average) 1000 watts of sun energy are absorbed. The models speak of a gas contribution energy of 1.6 watts retained. Look at the magnitudes, that's all. There is nothing complicated about it. If you think 1.6 out of 1001.6 is that significant, then ok. I don't. Its .1 percent. We should have a .1% increase in temperature. If the reports figures are correct.

Mr. Patrick: We seem to disagree too little to be in a feud. I am totally convinced, like you, that we should be using all form of energy at once and exploiting all earth motions. I also think we should seriously consider capturing that methane that is coming and using it. We don't have to burn it, we could use it for synthesis, but even if we burn it, CO2 is better than methane as a greenhouse gas. The earth is warming, that means more energy to extract. Unfortunately, there is no money for these very important things, war takes up all the money. That takes us back to the American people who presently, as a majority, think McCain would be the superior commander in chief. What would he do? Spend more money on war while all this energy stays unharnessed. I hate it.

~PDF~ My opioion about burning coal or oil is the same as Billy__y4s I don't need to re-think it. We need to stop burning it.

Sorry I was so condescending. Had a rough day. Keep up the math. It just seems that if we cannot predict the average temperature in the near future, but only explain it in the past, we are missing some important components of the equation. The test of a model is its predictive ability. Will next year or the next few years be warmer or cooler than last year or the last few years? For me its not the logic of a model that makes it useful but rather its predicive ability. I have seen many logical models supported by the majority of scientists that were not worth the paper that they were written on. I am not using this argument to support spewing more pollution into the air. My concern is that if global warming is debunked, the masses will see this as justification for business as usual.

lizard – I am sure that you can point out some pretty scary practices in the medical field (based on logic) that were considered best practices in the day, but probably killed thousands. Even lay medical advice like eat margarine and staying out of the sun have given way to stay away from trans-fats and get sufficient sun exposure. The old treatment for head trauma comes to mind also as a poster child for why logical answers can sometimes kill many.

Kem ~

My pet peeve is coal; and for good reason. If you're looking for some scientific research behind that peeve, there is some good, factual, non-political facts about the black death found in coal, take a read, and see if you don't re-think your coal stance:

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

You are too focused on CO2, in my humble opinion. You look at the big