• Videoblogs
    Check out the latest video's from James T. Harris and The National Conversation

Newsradio 620 WTMJ Podcast the James Harris Show

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « Signs! | Main | Hope & Change turns ugly »

    October 06, 2010


    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


    " contrary to your opinion we can go to unbearably hot to ice age in weeks under the right atmospheric conditions". Like what conditions? An asteroid the size of Wisconsin hitting the planet? What do you base that statement on Chris? Do you have any data to back that up? " if our effects on it are negative, which they are right now,... What scale would you use, Chris? To what extreme do we build a scale? Scientists measure cow farts. How about YOUR farts, Chris. Punch a plug up there and help the environment.You would be doing your part. "find me one single company listed there that makes "alot of money" off being concerned about the environment. How about Westinghouse, Michelin and Caterpillar to name a few, they got millions of tax dollars to research " green technology". They were funded through the U.S. Commerce Dept.


    There have been several studies done on ice cores that suggest ice ages happen extremely fast, as in decades, though there was some evidence to suggest the ice ages happened virtually overnight in less than a year. These may have been due to "events" like asteroids the size of Wisconsin hitting the earth, yes, but since we still do not know what things like our magnetic field and coronal mass ejections actually do to our climate, its hard to say one way or the other.

    So since those things are pretty much a wash, and the evidence from ice cores suggests the levels of contaminants and carbon in our atmosphere RIGHT NOW is rising at a rate that is unheard of (if you trust the data from ice cores, which I do) then yes we are having a negative effect.

    Here's an article from those fascist money-grabber "econuts" over at Science Daily that might explain it better than I can.

    To what extreme will you defend not giving a rat's ass?

    To what extreme will you go, Frank, to allow yourself the petty pleasure of liberal bashing, when you know you don't condone the actions of those people who put up big posters of aborted babies on the overpass. I stand by what I said before, its the same thing.

    That's what you call "making alot of money"?? The peanuts Caterpillar got to clean up their act?? I know for a fact they are as guilty as anyone of dumping toxic shit in the Menomonee Valley, I remember reading the story about it in the journal when I was a teenager. No, there are no companies making staggering amounts of money coming directly from the fed for environment research, and if I were given the chance to give away either the stimulus bill or the fraction of that which goes for environmental research, guess which one I'm taking??

    Maddie - Saukville

    I'll concede to you on Phelps Chris. I had a knee jerk response to people pissing on soldiers graves and implied they were lefties, it is an easy mistake since they always are otherwise, but you sound frustrated and I am worried that heat rising from your core may cause a spike in mercury levels, so, you're right, I was wrong, you're smart, I'm dumb, you're handsome, I'm not very attractive.

    Frank beat me to the punch on the asteroid-that is the first thing that comes to mind when I think really, really cold to really, really hot in an instant, a massive gamma ray burst as from a pulsar/neutron star or supernova would certainly kill our hot planet and turn it cold real fast instantly stripping our atmosphere.

    You're still falling flat on the rest though, if not proving my points further yourself.

    GE-too easy, CFLs?! Energy Star appliances?!
    GM-now government motors, the VOLT.
    J&J-full line of 'green' cleaning products.

    So you might say they are making money either way but what is the point? Fortune 500 companies are going to make money because they are going to sell whatever it is people want to buy. That kind of goes to the snake oil reference, it's good for low blood pressure, high blood pressure, if you're hot, if you're cold, if you're too skinny, if you're too fat. It cures what ails you and either way, we'll make money on it.

    Making a lot of money (no such word as alot-not a biggie) off Global Warming:

    Archer Daniels Midland

    That's for starters on directly making money, indirectly there are still more Microsoft for example provides incentives to various manufacturers and contractors, selling product in the process. Contractors not incidentally, 'green buildings'!

    The Menomonee Valley, far cleaner today than it was in the 70s, again, prove my point, we don't do things the same today as we did at the dawn of industry. Now you can argue that econuts complaining over the years are to credit and I don't begrudge them of some credit but not all. Back to the poster, they didn't picture children in nooses either and they didn't suggest that the entire earth would become a barren wasteland because Lake Erie was brown and glowed at night.

    "THE DEBATE IS OVER" sayeth the Prophet Gore and Canadian Cardinal Suzuki has the same sermon, those two nut jobs weren't out there on their own, large segments of scientific communities had their backs, making names for themselves, gaining power, prestige, making money or getting it in grants, universities threatening to revoke doctorates, colleagues shunned, etc., etc. “Shut up, they explained” is well documented and well known and doesn’t need me to validate it.

    I'm leaving it at that, I can be persuaded and I named the requirements, not one of them is remotely close to being met and I really don't care to try to convince someone who buys it that they're foolish, anyway I'm a fan of Mr. Barnum's circus. I don't hate you, I don't think you're a bad person, believe in what you want and I'll do the same. Have a great weekend everyone!


    Chris, I read the article and here is another article that explains why the ice core data is inherently inaccurate and produces artifically lower readings than those obtained from plants cells from the same geological time frame.

    This is a phenomena that has occurred before without any man-made cause during the medieval warming period and the temperature rise preceeded the rise in CO2.

    Remember, correlation does not equal causation.

    Do some research on the accuracy of some of the data that is currently used to develop the models and how high a percentage of the measurement points are now affected by urbanization and are producing artifically high temps. (They found thermometers with air conditioner condensing units blowing hot air on them.) This in turn lead to inaccurate modeling that Global Scientists use to show that global warming is going to destroy our world.

    And maybe you can answer the question for me that I always ask global warming religionists: What, exactly, is the optimum temperature that the earth should maintain itself at? How do we know warmer temperatures won't be better for crop growing along with the increased levels of CO2 which have also been shown to increase growth in plants.

    If you want more info on Global Warming and why I believe it is not attributable to man made causes, let's discuss. I like to think myself the resident expert.


    Chris..."See what most people do, Joyce, when they are debating something, is to offer some objection that has substance behind it, rather than just saying "you're wrong" , and "yeah, what she said" like you just did."

    Do you want to provide quote where I said... as you have posted: "you're wrong".

    I do agree with what Maddie said... Why do I need to post the same comments? To match the numerous words you've typed?

    Smug: The superiority that you know who we are, what we think.

    I base my tag of smug on the following assumptions made:
    " Has someone here studied global climate? I don't think so."
    Do you have fact to back up that statement?

    Assumption: "... you're just quoting your favorite TV/Radio conservative icon..."
    Provide the quote I used by any media. You see Chris, if and when I do choose to quote I provide the source.

    Assumption: "... trying to diminish my arguments by ignoring them like you usually do?"
    I've read the comments... and you assume I have not. I just don't think any number of words, or any discussion will satisfy your your hunger to disagree.


    Maddie, Cookers and Joyce. Great posts. Why is it derek and Chris ignore key parts of a post? I stated I was involved in the 1970's and still am to this day. I do "give a rats ass" and just because I don't believe junk science doesn't mean I don't care. To each his own.


    Maddie/Cookers are you trying to drag me into a discussion about global warming? I haven't said one word about GW as your buddy Gore likes to ramble on about it being the end of the world. I have presented more than enough evidence to suggest that humans changing our climate negatively is a definite possibility and not a hoax or "garbage science" like a few of you said. Cookers while the chemical elements of ice cores can be inaccurate, the carbon is considered spot on. You can debate me all you want but even your article says so.

    I'm not concerned about the political posturing over it, nor does it have any bearing on this conversation, except to say that the people who made the noose poster belong to a fringe element that thinks its ok to shock people into submission. Your side has a fringe element too, and they engage in similar behavior.

    Do you really think these fringe elements should be part of conversations on abortion and climate change? They are always the loudest bitchers, and always resort to extreme means for tiny ends.

    While I would love to talk to you about climate change Cookers, I'm not going to say anything about it except I totally agree with you about people who are GW "champions" and I actually say the same things to them. Maybe the earth warming will bring on more prosperous times, who could possibly say right now?? I will never champion GW, but I will say there are parts of the Theory (which is what GW is) that add up.. and they add up to some trouble for humans. Convincing people climate change is a bunch of "garbage science" is a bit extreme, don't you think Frank? Do you really want to belong to that fringe element?


    " I am not concerned about the political posturing over it, nor does it have any bearing over it". When it comes down to tax dollars being funneled to programs that benefits special interests, it has every thing to do with the conversation and all of it effects us as much as the weather does. I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just voicing what I believe. "Buddy Gore"? Focus Chris. The poster is about the environment, not abortion. Here we go again. This guy is spinning around the topic like a top, pinging off every wall he can hit. The only " extreme" element of this dialog, is that you Chris, are a wing nut. An "extreme" wing nut.


    "What, exactly, is the optimum temperature that the earth should maintain itself at?"

    The one that comes about naturally. Hell, it's not really even about temperature, it's about a rate of increase that's occurring faster than our ability to adapt to it.

    And seriously, does logical inconsistency bug you at all? I mean, you jump from "causation doesn't equal correlation" to some argument that implies we can't trust temperature readings, to well, what does it matter if its warming. In another post you might write something CO2 as the primary greenhouse gas driver

    It's the throw shit at the wall form of arguing. Which usually comes from people that aren't arguing from a position of strength and really are just being contrarian.

    The lynchpin for all scientific explanations is a mechanism. Don't give me some "correlation doesn't equal causation" nonsense if you can't offer a mechanism for why temperatures are increasing. You may be willing to argument from a crap foundation, but that's not a luxury the people that actually are tasked with solving problems have. An empty hand doesn't wipe out actual evidence. This isn't the OJ trial.


    I'm going on vacation until the stupids are all gone.


    Might I suggest france? your beret will be very welcome there.


    yeah its just madness isn't it Frank? Maybe when you're all done being hypocritical I'll go on vacation.


    Oh gnat you said something clever and funny.
    Yeah almost like a normal person!!

    You do realize that Frank isn't wearing his beret in that picture right?

    Just checking. Far be it from me to make you out to be crazier than you are.


    cricket(aka chris) is a snot nosed baby, child, adolescent or adult. Take your pick.
    His disjointed comments leave no clue as to his age.

    All I know is he does an awful lot of chirping here.
    Unfortunately he never has a point.
    But after all that is the first rule you learn when you go to troll school.

    Frank enjoy your vacation!

    Chirp away cricket. After a while the noise blends into the background and you can't even hear it.


    Chris, how can anyone debate with you? You post an article regarding global warming and in your next post you claim you don't want to participate in a global warming discussion?

    If you are willing to investigate, you will find that there are highly respected scientist who do not belive in man being behind the global warming trends. And their list is growing, not shrinking.

    I have adjusted my position from being convinced that global warming is not man made to remaining open minded that it is a possibility. I have had to do that to be consistent with my more strongly held view that global warming is not man made. Both views have scientific support. But neither has definitive scientific proof, as much as AGW scientist want to claim that they do.

    There are two issue that have me leaning to non-man made global warming. If the historical data is to be believed, the medieval warming was as warm as we are currently experiencing. There was no industry producing CO2 at the time.

    The second is that the contribution of man made CO2 to the overall green house gas mix, is far less than 1%. If scientists are honest, they need to include water vapor in their models. Many do not as they know that the impact of water vapor far exceeds CO2 both in concentration and in the ability to trap infrared rays. So if man reduces their level of CO2 output by 20%, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere will virtually not change.

    Derek, please continue to bury your head and ignore the science that is out there. You put your fingers in your ears and yell La-La-La-La. That is a political position and has nothing to do with science. Science should consider all evidence and keep refining it until there is consensus. AGW scientists control their data tightly and don't want scrutiny. That is the sign of people who are trying to hide something and not the way true scientists, who should be interested in getting to the accurate answer, should be acting.

    Sounds just like you, D.


    Sorry the last post was so long.

    As for the mechanism that Derek is demanding, Occams razor comes into play. The simplest answer is usually the correct answer.

    Water contains dissolved CO2. As the temperature increases, it cannot hold as much CO2 such that it releases CO2 to the atmosphere. As the the temp decreases, it re-dissolves CO2. Consider the amount of water that covers the surface of the earth. This simple phenomena explains why many of the trends show CO2 concentration lagging the temperature increases.

    If this is the accurate explanation, then the temperature actually causes the rise in CO2 rather than vice versa. If we could factor in all of the other variables that affect these two key variables, then we might have a model that describes the phenomena. But that is truly a daunting process and will not likely occur in our lifetime.


    The mechanism you need is for the temperature increase. Good luck picking something that isn't already disproven


    BTW, the feedback loop you're talking about is the reason there should be more urgency about global warming. It feeds on itself, as it gets hotter, the carbon cycle removes less and less carbon and there eventually is a point of no return for solving the issue.


    I find there to be a great distinction (at this point) between the idea of man-made climate change and "global warming" since the politics behind GW have gotten so bloody. To me the two are not the same thing. One represents an area of scientific research and the other is now strictly a political motive that has misrepresented data and extremists using it for a rallying cry. Maybe its naive of me to try and separate these ideas that are virtually the same thing, but I've noticed the scientific community is definitely making a distinction.


    Vacation postponed. Hypocritical about what Chris? derek, if I ever do take a trip to France, I'll bring back a French boy for you so you can strike up a relationship seeing how thats your flavor.


    About what Frank? Howabout the reason I'm posting in this retarded thread anyway.. you wanna point a finger at "prograssives" for making such an obscene poster, yet there are elements of the conservative fringe that resort to the same thing time after time. Judgement disqualified. Thanks for making me re-state what I've stated three times already in this thread.


    Derek, inherent in your comment about the feedback loop is the assumption that CO2 is the cause of the warming. I am arguing that it is not. And you are wrong about all of the mechanisms being disproven. Quite the opposite. Most everything is still on the table. You have simply drank the Kool Aide and refuse to consider other alternatives that also have a foundation in science. Your head has been stuck in the sand so long you are starved for oxygen.

    Actually Chris, I somewhat agree with your last post. Where we diverge is that the man-made global warming camp is driven by the funding that is provided by political bodies. It becomes driven by political agendas rather than scientific agendas. That is the main reason there is so much acrimony over this issue. The researchers need the funding such that they toe the political meme rather than perform pure scientific research. The fix is in such that much of the "research" already has preconceived results.

    As someone who is in a scientific field and have performed research as well as reviewed research, I know first hand that science is not as pure as many assume it to be.


    Chris, you arrogant piss ant. I'll point my finger anywhere I want. It's still a free country, at least until the socialists in the White House change that, and your not qualified to disqualify my judgement, to use your words, and extremists on both sides of the isle make me sick, just like you do. My first post on this subject addressed the poster. The rest was on the environment. Again you fail to focus. And no need to thank me for YOU being such an obsessive compulsive nut that you can't help yourself from blathering on about the subject " three times".


    well then Frank, you are a hypocrite. Or you can chalk up the poster to extremism and not implicate all progressives.


    Chris, you don't get to dictate what I can say, and give me options. Piss off you arrogant nit-wit.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    My Photo

    More on James T. Harris


    Book James Harris to speak at your event

    September 2011

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30