Free Republic

Dem balloons provide a great simulation of a blowout when they bust too. A 2fer!!!!

I’m sure going to be miss the majestic roar of a 350 small block chevy.

A poker card in the wheel spokes works good. Kids these days jess don' know nut'in ;O)

Fact of the matter is, if you are not a terrorist, or talking to overseas terrorists on the phone, no one is listening to your conversations. No one.

Most times, not even the person being called is actually listening, LOL.

So you seem to be in the camp that calls a semi-automatic hunting rifle an "assault weapon" just beacuse "the usage has been decided" by the gubmint.

So how many folks have lost the .legal battle for failing to recognize the the usage of that term in law?

They one that round very handily I would say, because we allowed them to define the usage of said term in law and the courts and have been paying a heavy price ever since.

Common usage means nothing in a court of law, the legal and treaty definitions rule whenever they are defined in statute; A condition to the detriment of many a person attempting to fight a legal and political battle not recognising the political meanings of the terms of art they are faced with.

Argue science when the fight is one of politics will ultimately loose the war that much be fought in these issues.

So you seem to be in the camp that calls a semi-automatic hunting rifle an "assault weapon" just beacuse "the usage has been decided" by the gubmint.

 

When you don’t recognize the political stakes and terms of the debate, in this case national sovereignty, and personal freedom. You loose.

The debate is political, not scientific.

" 'science for policy' must be recognized as a different enterprise than 'science itself"

Your issues are a nonstarter in the international political debate where the real fight must be fought.

 

You are aware, no doubt, of Dr. Schneider’s earlier comments on climate.

Of that I am very much aware, I am also aware the Schneider and his ilk will win, if we don't take on the "science for policy", i.e. political fight that must be fought far a beyond that of science fact.

Losing the propaganda war by falling into the bait and switch semantic trap will be the real disaster. Conceding the existence of "Climate Change" by allowing the inclusion of that treaty defined term into law out of lack of understanding the import of its meaning under treaties and international law will indeed be death knell of political debate that stands before us.

The UN/IPCC plan is nothing more than an elaborate bait and switch scam using treating defined terms and concensus politics to drive toward global political and economic regulation agendas.

 

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

• "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
  ( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

• Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."

 

---

 

Mix UN/IPCC consensus driven politics with science the animal you get is anything but science.

 

The genesis of the UN/IPCC's current uncertainty guidance paper comes from the concepts expressed in this paper authored by Steven Schneider (one of the historical heavy lifters in the anthropogenic global warming crew) on the subject of how uncertainty should be expressed in IPCC papers:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/UncertaintiesGuidanceFinal2.pdf

"A final note before turning to the specific recommendations themselves-the paper assumes that for most instances in the TAR, a "Bayesian" or "subjective" characterization of probability will be the most appropriate (see, e.g., Edwards, 1992, for a philosophical basis for Baysian methods; for applications of Bayesian methods, see e.g., Anderson, 1998; Howard et al., 1972). The Bayesian paradigm is a formal and rigorous language to communicate uncertainty. In it, a "prior" belief about a probability distribution (typically based on existing evidence) can be updated by new evidence, which causes a revision of the prior, producing a so-called "posterior" probability. Applying the paradigm in the assessment process involves combining individual authors' (and reviewers') Bayesian assessments of probability distributions and would lead to the following interpretation of probability statements: the probability of an event is the degree of belief that exists among lead authors and reviewers that the event will occur, given the observations, modeling results, and theory currently available. When complex systems are the topic, both prior and updated probability distributions usually contain a high degree of (informed) subjectivity. Thus in the TAR, we expect Bayesian approaches to be what is most often meant when probabilities are attached to outcomes with an inherent component of subjectivity or to an assessment of the state of the science from which confidence characterisations are offered."

And the intent of the use of such terms:

"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity. "

 

The same Steven Schneider responsible for this quote:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

P.S. You may find this of interest in regards UN/IPCC estimates of uncertainty. Such have nothing to do with Science and everything to do with politics and political agendas.

Mix UN/IPCC consensus driven politics with science the animal you get is anything but science.

 

The genesis of the UN/IPCC's current uncertainty guidance paper comes from the concepts expressed in this paper authored by Steven Schneider (one of the historical heavy lifters in the anthropogenic global warming crew) on the subject of how uncertainty should be expressed in IPCC papers:

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/UncertaintiesGuidanceFinal2.pdf

"A final note before turning to the specific recommendations themselves-the paper assumes that for most instances in the TAR, a "Bayesian" or "subjective" characterization of probability will be the most appropriate (see, e.g., Edwards, 1992, for a philosophical basis for Baysian methods; for applications of Bayesian methods, see e.g., Anderson, 1998; Howard et al., 1972). The Bayesian paradigm is a formal and rigorous language to communicate uncertainty. In it, a "prior" belief about a probability distribution (typically based on existing evidence) can be updated by new evidence, which causes a revision of the prior, producing a so-called "posterior" probability. Applying the paradigm in the assessment process involves combining individual authors' (and reviewers') Bayesian assessments of probability distributions and would lead to the following interpretation of probability statements: the probability of an event is the degree of belief that exists among lead authors and reviewers that the event will occur, given the observations, modeling results, and theory currently available. When complex systems are the topic, both prior and updated probability distributions usually contain a high degree of (informed) subjectivity. Thus in the TAR, we expect Bayesian approaches to be what is most often meant when probabilities are attached to outcomes with an inherent component of subjectivity or to an assessment of the state of the science from which confidence characterisations are offered."

And the intent of the use of such terms:

"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself, since science for policy (e.g., Ravetz, 1986) involves being responsive to policymakers' needs for expert judgment at a particular time, given the information currently available, even if those judgments involve a considerable degree of subjectivity. "

 

The same Steven Schneider responsible for this quote:

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
(Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

I refuse to yield that terminology change to the UNFCCC version you use

LOL, you don't have a say, in the usage it has already been decided by UN treaty obligations.

Climate Change in regards international law and its US law, as we are adherants to the 1992 "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ", controls the political debate regarding statutes and regulations.

Science has nothing to do with it, global political control and regulation of economies is the controlling and end product of this debate. The usage of political terms is a matter of international law and political shenannigans at this point. The issue is about political and economic control and nothing else.

You may argue your points all you wish, it will not change the terms of the real debate that remains hidden from your view as long as you fail to recognize what the real debate is actually about and insist on arguing from the wrong premises.

That is why the Political Summary from the IPCC states "Climate Change" is anthropogenic to a 90% certainty. The statement is a political statment not a statement of science. It is based on a concensus , a beysian estimate, of wearing the scientist's frock for cover and misdirection.

Anyone who denies that climate change is occurring just isn't paying attention.

The UN/IPCC usage of the term "Climate Change" means anthropogenic cause. It is an apriori assumption implicit in treaty obligations whenever said term is used in the context of political action.

 

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

• "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
  ( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

• Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

 

The main question now is, "How much, if any, is anthropogenic?"

Anthropogenic cause is presumed within the term "Climate Change" thus no such question remains to be answered in the the view of climate alarmists and political opportunists. In using the term you have stipulated that the cause is anthropogenic.

"He pointed out that much of China's emissions growth was being driven by consumers in the West buying Chinese goods,"

That's easy to fix, put high tariff's on Chinese stuff and just quit buying it.

Emission's problem solved.

A Taxreform ping for you all.

If anyone would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25) offer a comprehensive bill to kill all federal income, SS/Medicare payroll, and gift/estate taxes outright replacing them with with a national retail sales tax administered by the states.

for additional information:

• AllTheWeb search: "national sales tax" OR "national retail sales tax" OR "fairtax"

I have some carbon (graphite) trapped in a jar.

That's noth'n, I've got a lump of coal in a sock. So There!! as my daughter would say ;O)

The AIM satellite mission will explore Polar Mesospheric Clouds (PMCs), also called noctilucent clouds. PMCs, form about 50 miles above the Earth's surface and are commonly seen over the polar regions. More recently these clouds have been sighted in Colorado and Utah where they have never before been observed.

 

Interesting, considering where we are in the present inter-glacial part of the earth's glacial cycle.

 

 

Previous article in regards the noctilucent cloud formations:

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn9228-mysterious-glowing-clouds-targeted-by-nasa.html

Mysterious glowing clouds targeted by NASA
26 May, 2006

High-altitude noctilucent clouds have been mysteriously spreading around the world in recent years (Image: NASA/JSC/ES and IA)

And coincident dust aggregations:

 

http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.252.html#1

INTERPLANETARY DUST PARTICLES (IDPs) are deposited on the Earth at the rate of about 10,000 tons per year. Does this have any effect on climate? Scientists at Caltech have found that ancient samples of helium-3 (coming mostly from IDPs) in oceanic sediments exhibit a 100,000-year periodicity. The researchers assert that their data, taken along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, support a recently enunciated idea that Earth's orbital inclination varies with a 100-kyr period; this notion in turn had been broached as an explanation for a similar periodicity in the succession of ice ages. (K.A. Farley and D.B. Patterson, Nature, 7 December 1995.)
Farley & Patterson 1998, http://www.elsevier.com/gej-ng/10/20/36/33/37/32/abstract.html
Farley http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~farley/
Farley http://www.elsevier.nl/gej-ng/10/18/23/54/21/49/abstract.html

 

http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/pr96/dec96/noaa96-78.html

ABRUPT CLIMATE CHANGE DURING LAST GLACIAL PERIOD COULD BE TIED TO DUST-INDUCED REGIONAL WARMING

Preliminary new evidence suggests that periodic increases in atmospheric dust concentrations during the glacial periods of the last 100,000 years may have resulted in significant regional warming, and that this warming may have triggered the abrupt climatic changes observed in paleoclimate records, according to a scientist at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Current scientific thinking is that the dust concentrations contributed to global cooling.

Thanks for the ping.

Of interest, the range of the current prediction for Cycle 24 affirms the lower range of longterm estimate, in fact points at an even lower level than that earlier estimate:

 

 

 

NASA - Long Range Solar Forecast

 

The ultimate test will be the long term prediction covering cycle 25, which holds the greatest potential for affirming or disproving the connection solar cycle connection with global climate.

 

The Little Ice Age was a associated with a lack of observed sunspots though several cycles, i.e. the Maunder Minimum.

:It’s a shame that those who feel our climate change isn’t anthropogenic feel they must resort to Michael Moore-style lies to make their case.

Accusing one's opposition of one's own sins hardly a new gambit.

But then, more in politics than any other endevour the bigger the fabrication, the more likely it will be received by the intended audience:

 

It's almost as though they took a page right out of the Dark Ages.

Almost? These methods have been around throughout history.

 

SINGAPORE (AFP) - More than 600 business executives and experts began meeting in Singapore on Thursday to discuss how the corporate world can help tackle the threat of climate change.

 

Garbage in, Garbage out

An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/McKitrick.pdf

The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:

• "Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
  ( http://unfccc.int/index.html )

The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):

• Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.

This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."

 

---

 

 

Global warming is right out of the Clinton playbook. Al Gore and his merry band of global socialists learned well.

More like straight out of Machiavelli, nothing new. Same centuries ole game, just the labels change.

 

 

A fool and his money are soon parted.

Two hundred scientists from around the world helped write the international document, and its summary findings were formally unveiled in Brussels on Friday. The importance of this report, Running said, is that it is the document “we know the politicians and world leaders pay attention to.”

 

"To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."
--- Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; and American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."
--- Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001

"Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue, and energy sources such as "synfuels," shale oil and tar sands were receiving strong consideration."
-- James Hansen, stated in presentation to Council on Environmental Quality, June 12, 2003

"The data don't matter. We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models"
(Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office)