"The Chocolate Hoax, Junk Science, and the Media" Topic

and that is human nature. And that is why the politicians will never agree to what you want.
All of which brings us back to my point that it doesn't matter who is right.

Enough of this nonsense….

SO…. If it doesn't matter, then WHY are YOU continually bringing it up? YOU, JJ, are the only one who keeps this "conversation" going. Yes, we ALL know how much you HATE the IPCC. Yes, we ALL know much you think ANY mitigation is useless. So, having established that, and how utterly useless it is to discuss this issue, how about JUST LETTING IT DROP….

HAVE A NICE DAY….

SO…. If it doesn't matter, then WHY are YOU continually bringing it up? YOU, JJ, are the only one who keeps this "conversation" going.

Because I want to. Don't like my comments? Don't reply.

Yes, we ALL know much you think ANY mitigation is useless.

is an outright lie. I can provide links and specific quotes from my posts that clearly state otherwise. Don't I give you enough material that you have to make up crap like this?

So, having established that, and how utterly useless it is to discuss this issue, how about JUST LETTING IT DROP….

Not a chance in hell.

HAVE A NICE DAY….

You too!

JJ

is an outright lie. I can provide links and specific quotes from my posts that clearly state otherwise. Don't I give you enough material that you have to make up crap like this?

Well, let's see…. There was that article (with the lamentable 3rd grade math failure) that you posted lambasting a solar plant for having a 'hideous' level of bird kills. Never mind that the bird kills from ALL the wind, solar, tar sands, etc efforts are several magnitudes less than that caused by the common house cat or birds impacting windows (which, BTW, that last constitutes the highest man-made cause of bird kills. I suppose, by your logic, we should now ban buildings with windows).

I could go on, but why bother… It's pointless. Like this discussion…

Because I want to. Don't like my comments? Don't reply.
Not a chance in hell.

Whatever rocks your boat…

mandt2, martin- Came across this in Skeptical Science (forgotten I had bookmarked it). A 100MB(!) Gish Gallop on climate change. Truly impressive (in a warped sort of way).

link

Well, let's see…. There was that article (with the lamentable 3rd grade math failure) that you posted lambasting a solar plant for having a 'hideous' level of bird kills. Never mind that the bird kills from ALL the wind, solar, tar sands, etc efforts are several magnitudes less than that caused by the common house cat or birds impacting windows (which, BTW, that last constitutes the highest man-made cause of bird kills. I suppose, by your logic, we should now ban buildings with windows).

What a load of crap! TMP link 1 jun 9:43

""So, you DO deny that anything should be done. "

Where did I say that? I said you don't have a workable acceptable plan. Having a plan that will not be followed seems pretty close to not doing anything. I've repeatedly posted that we should be spending our money on R&D for alternative energy source development, such as biomass from the ocean as a clean fuel, expand the use of natural gas, build nuke plants, as well as continuing to do generalized improvement of the environment."

several magnitudes less than that caused by the common house cat or birds impacting windows (which, BTW, that last constitutes the highest man-made cause of bird kills

So we should just accept the loss of wildlife because something else is worse? I guess then you'd be in favor of switching from coal fired pollution to oil fired pollution because coal is worse.

There was that article (with the lamentable 3rd grade math failure) that you posted lambasting a solar plant for having a 'hideous' level of bird kills

also see Scientific American
link

Weather.com
link

Reported on NBC
link

and CBS
link

Discovery
link

UTSD
link

Go shovel your crap elsewhere. Just because you don't like the link doesn't make the information untrue.

Thought I'd already and repeatedly demonstrated that but you and others keep resorting to attacking the messenger without determining that the message is actually correct.

A bit lazy, eh?

I could go on, but why bother… It's pointless. Like this discussion…

Yet you keep continuing to comment…

JJ

Well, let's see…. There was that article (with the lamentable 3rd grade math failure) that you posted lambasting a solar plant for having a 'hideous' level of bird kills. Never mind that the bird kills from ALL the wind, solar, tar sands, etc efforts are several magnitudes less than that caused by the common house cat or birds impacting windows (which, BTW, that last constitutes the highest man-made cause of bird kills. I suppose, by your logic, we should now ban buildings with windows).
What a load of crap! TMP link 1 jun 9:43

JJ, you make this far too easy… And I suppose this wasn't your posting?

Birds?

THEY'RE DOOMED TOO!

link

President Obama's avian genocide is one of the greatest crimes ever perpetrated against the bird community. His determination to eradicate the population of majestic bald eagles—the single greatest symbolic representation of the American freedom—is particularly unsettling. Half-hearted protests from fair-weather environmentalists, who regard the thousands of brutally murdered eagles every year as mere collateral damage in their misguided quest to save the planet, have done little to dissuade this president. In fact, Obama appears to be pursuing his genocidal ambitions with increasing zeal, as his lust for bird blood grows beyond the "green" energy sector's capacity to chop or incinerate them out of the sky. Energy Wire reports that an estimated 3,500 birds were slaughtered at the Ivanpah solar power plant in its first year of operation. That works out to almost 100 glorious winged creatures massacred each day. The 377-megawatt plant, sprawled across nearly five square miles in the Nevada desert, was financed in part by a $1.6 USD USD billion taxpayer-guaranteed loan from the Department of Energy. It has been touted by President Obama and Senate minority leader Harry Reid as a critical weapon in the left-wing "war" on "climate" "change." But while the plant's energy production has been lagging, it continues to surpass expectations when it comes to bird murder
But hey, it's green power!

Never said anything about the ecological impact of alternative energy (although it is a significant concern). But to take that one data point out of context and blow it out of all proportion is patently absurd. And I really don't need your second hand sources since I went to peer reviewed original research to get my numbers (the benefit of a science education, I suppose; a double minor in meteorology and physical science). (And about your last link to the UT San Diego; I wouldn't use that miserable rag for lining a birdcage.)

Where did I say that? I said you don't have a workable acceptable plan. Having a plan that will not be followed seems pretty close to not doing anything. I've repeatedly posted that we should be spending our money on R&D for alternative energy source development, such as biomass from the ocean as a clean fuel, expand the use of natural gas, build nuke plants, as well as continuing to do generalized improvement of the environment."

Well, for once we may actually agree on some points. Yes, pursuing energy efficiency (better appliances, better lighting, etc) is a very important area. And, in the main, is already well underway coupled with more efficient power production. As for nuke energy; well, that's gaining on one front (CO2 emissions) and losing on another (nuclear waste problem). Last I heard, there was still ongoing research in better plant design, but the waste issue is still a problem. But yes, there is definite value in such programs along with solar, wind, etc.

As for not having a plan; that's a political issue. If the parties involved decline to take action in light of the evidence given, then I suppose we're truly screwed. And that I suppose is the crux of the issue. If governments refuse to act, then that's that. And we'll all end up with whatever consequences that come out of that. Because, in the end, regardless of what you, me or the President of China thinks, the science will have its due….

So it seems like there are points where we agree, there a possibility of carrying on a discussion after all…

As for my use of the " bird cage liner " once again you not liking the source does not invalidate what they report. I' e agreed elsewhere that it may well be for the politicians rather than the scientist to come up with the plan and have no problem comceding that point again. I think I've made a pretty solid case that by and large, politicians will never do one to do what you want, as well as provide the quote that may or may not prove true that with just Chima following their intened path, if you are right we are screwed beyond recovery,

Better start hoping that the IPCC does not have it right and the other scientists do.

JJ

As for my use of the " bird cage liner " once again you not liking the source does not invalidate what they report.

That's the local rag and my description is more than charitable. Its agenda driven reporting is practically a joke around here (and anything unfavorable to the current administration automatically gets above the fold treatment). But, in your defense, you wouldn't have been aware of that.

Better start hoping that the IPCC does not have it right and the other scientists do.

Unfortunately, they do have it right. But I guess we'll just have to disagree on that.

Yep.

Better start hoping that the IPCC does not have it right and the other scientists do.

BTW, when discussing REAL science 'hoping' for an outcome is not a valid response….

1. "Real" science isn't just what you believe it is.

2. Being prepared to say "I told you so" after catastrophe hits (as I've shown is highly likely given the politics, if you are right) and waiting for the politicians to do what they won't isn't a valid response either.

JJ

By the way, I was happy to leave it with you comment with which I concurred that we'd have to disagree. But since you seem to want to keep up the insults and personal attacks and misrepresenting what I've posted, rest assured I'm more than happy to engage in return fire for as long as you like.

JJ

1. "Real" science isn't just what you believe it is.

Whatever you, me or anyone else believes, science is what it is.

2. Being prepared to say "I told you so" after catastrophe hits (as I've shown is highly likely given the politics, if you are right) and waiting for the politicians to do what they won't isn't a valid response either.

JJ, at this point, it is the responsibility of the politicians to take action. If they don't, then physics will take its course. And that, unfortunately, is the harsh reality. Given what I've seen of the basic research, hoping for an alternative outcome isn't a realistic empirical option.

And let's end it there….

OK.

'Till the next time, have a good one.

JJ

Now for the clincher: reduced population IS the solution. Something under a billion homo sapiens should do the trick. The good Earth would recover rapidly and wonderfully well. And "we" remaining hairless bipeds could pollute to our hearts content and the Earth would easily suck it up….

There are those who propose that, though not the method. There are some Gaia lovers who believe we should all be killed so the world can be as it should be.

As for the bird deaths, it's not birds in general that are of concern, it's raptors-- hawks, eagles, and similar rare and endangered birds (like the California Condor)-- which are being killed by windfarms and solar-boiler mirror arrays. Cats don't kill raptors, and raptors don't fly into buildings, by and large. (That's mostly pigeons and songbirds, and while we may want to protect songbirds, nobody gives a crap about urban pigeons, aka "feathered rats.")

Aside from that comment, this really was supposed to be a thread about bad medical studies and the willingness of lazy journalists to accept whatever got tossed in front of them without either understanding or effort to confirm. Sign.

It extends to any bad study and the lazy journalists willing to accept whatever gets tossed in front of them, especially if it either fits a favored position or counters an unflavored one.

I'd offer that it is one of the reasons newspapers are dying. They publish what they want, not what is actually news, investigative journalism is a shadow of its former self, and folks are tired of being fed the SOS especially when they're are other sources that cover both sides of an issue much more accessibly.

As for the birds, the warmest greenies dismiss it or refuse to discuss it, despite the problems it brings.
JJ

My "solution" of population reduction is to use AGW as the political tool that it is, seize control of the world through restructuring the world economy and cooperative military/police, etc. Once that has been accomplished, issue the directive, and start with all "citizens" who are kept alive artificially, or institutionalized, i.e. the expendables who are sucking our resources without a lick of contributing back. Next the inmates of our prisons who're in for life or on death row. Finally, all of the grossly obese and other self-inflicted drains on our economy who are in the hospital and out continuously, who need meds just to stay alive/viable, etc. and etc. and etc.

Once the worldwide population of useless riffraff are regulated and removed, comes the final solution: issue a 1D8 to every man, woman and child. On the appointed day, before the worldwide audience via the Internet, we roll simultaneously. All "8" rolls "save". Everyone else is regulated according to their choice, which can include lethal injection (think, Soylent Green), or similar "poison", a bullet, the guillotine, dropped from the World Trade Center, whathaveyou. Gone in less than 60 seconds. Voila! the world population is knocked back to the pre industrial revolution levels that are sustainable….

Thank you, Mr. Swift.

Gads! And here I thought Malthus was bad!

My solution: This link

Step 1. Agree that the technology and patents belong to Lockheed-Martin. They came up with it, it's theirs. Make 'em richer. I don't care.

Step 2. License the development to multiple teams, coordinated with one another. Each can explore different areas of development. Take all that money being tossed into the craphole that is the UN and use it to actually do some good for a change, and fund this work. Go all out full bore to make this happen. I expect multiple teams could cut the development time in half.

Step 3. Design systems that can be put in place at existing fossil fuel power plants. The fusion pack generates the heat. Everything else does what it already does (except the furnaces, of course). Modify, don't replace.

Step 4. Make it a no choice option for power providers. You install this, or we remove you. Yeah, we'll subsidize replacement. Yeah, you'll get richer off a non-polluting, non-hazardous fuel system that will be easier to maintain and cheaper to operate. Boo hoo. Shut up and build it.

Step 5. Tell the power/coal unions to shut up and retrain their people. What the hell are the dues supposed to be for, anyway? Oh, here's a bribe; now go away.

Step 6. Laugh at the Middle East, 'cause we don't need 'em anymore. Now they have sand and oil. With this, they'll just have sand..

There ya go. Multiple problems solved, no need to go Malthus.

Step 1. Agree that the technology and patents belong to Lockheed-Martin. They came up with it, it's theirs. Make 'em richer. I don't care.

Step 2. License the development to multiple teams, coordinated with one another. Each can explore different areas of development. Take all that money being tossed into the craphole that is the UN and use it to actually do some good for a change, and fund this work. Go all out full bore to make this happen. I expect multiple teams could cut the development time in half.

Ah, the scientific 'magic bullet' fantasy solution. I wish Lock/Mart all the luck in the world (they'll need it). But the record for this type of research is littered with bold pronouncements followed by quiet admissions of failure. That said, the research is promising (it always is) and I hope Lock/Mart succeeds where so many others (with far, far more experience in the field) have failed. Or in other words, I'll believe when I see it…. (or when they get their first self sustaining fusion reaction going).

Man, frack this thread

As for the bird deaths, it's not birds in general that are of concern, it's raptors-- hawks, eagles, and similar rare and endangered birds (like the California Condor)-- which are being killed by windfarms and solar-boiler mirror arrays. Cats don't kill raptors, and raptors don't fly into buildings, by and large. (That's mostly pigeons and songbirds, and while we may want to protect songbirds, nobody gives a crap about urban pigeons, aka "feathered rats.")

Okay, I was just passing by and noticed this sidebar on bird deaths. So I googled it and here's a link:

link

Here's teh top 9 causes:

1. Domestic and feral cats: 200 million

2. Power lines, collisions and electrocutions: 25 million

Wind turbines accounted for only 16,700 kills. But wind power is expected to grow tenfold over the next decade.

3. Collision with houses or buildings: 25 million

4. Vehicle collisions: 14 million

5. Game bird hunting: 5 million

6. Agricultural pesticides 2.7 million

7. Agricultural mowing: 2.2 million young birds, equivalent to one million adult birds (Gawd!)

8. Commercial forestry: 1.4 million nests, equivalent to 900,000 adult birds

9. Communications towers: 220,000

I didn't vet the site, and know nothing about the subject, but at least it's a source.

BTW, on the subject of raptors there is a sort of balance in nature. The ratio of prey animals to predators is usually about 50:1. It even holds for dinosaur fossils. If it's the same with their descendants, birds, then it would make sense that for 50 seed-eating birds there would be only one raptor. So if you are just looking at the number of raptors that die by any particular cause, it stands to reason that that number times 50 would give you a reasonable number of veggy bird deaths. Or not.

And by that logic, anyone killed as a result of pollution is OK as long as there are other things that outnumber them, such as starvation, war, AIDS, Cancer, Heart Disease, Stroke, etc. especially if the benefit from the generation of power using fossil fuels is more beneficial that the result that we'd have if we stopped without an adequate replacement.

You like small carbon footprints? Here's your top ten nations for smallest carbon footprints according to the world bank. With any luck, we too can soon be among them.

link
and sorted in order for you here:
link