Matters of Opinion 6/30/09

Content: solo, debate, global warming, cap and trade, educated idiots

10 responses to “Matters of Opinion 6/30/09”

  1. nate

    you keep talking about the cost of healthcare: you do realize that america has the most expensive healthcare system in the entire world?[1] and despite the expense, we’re still not as healthy as many other countries (all with free healthcare).

  2. nate

    p.s. global warming is happening: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f4/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

    it only takes a google search.

  3. nate

    no epa report has shown, in of itself, that there is any form of a “cooling trend.” in fact, the epa still maintains a significant and scientifically identified warming trend (note, 1998 being warmer than any proceeding year is not a challenge to global warming, check the graph). [1] as for this report, despite your lack of clarification, i would have to assume that you are referring to the report by alan carlin. first of all, that report does not necessarily concern itself with temperature change; the report is an analysis of the latest epa recommendations on co2 regulations. secondly, the author, carlin, is not actually a scientist – he’s an economist; he has no formal training or experience in climate science. the real debate is not on whether or not global warming is happening… the debate is on the mechanisms on which warming occurs, and how we may be able to reverse it. i agree our science is difficult in this respect, but in determining a warming trend, our science is wholly sufficient. [2]

  4. nate

    travis – the average temperature of the planet, as recorded by surface level instrumentation, has consistently been found to be rising, and rising @ a greater and greater rate [1]..
    that is a fact. now, we both appear to be claiming contrary propositions to be facts. what is causing this discrepancy? well, i took it upon myself to follow the sources of your source (the clearly antagonistic, “isthereglobalcooling.com”): what i found was that all of the data supporting the claims of this site are derived from satellite readings of non-surface level temperatures. now what i wanted to find was what the difference was between these two forms of measurement, i wanted to know why they led to seemingly contrary conclusions. this is what i found: first of all, satellite records are only indicative of temperatures above the areas measured by surface level instrumentation. secondly, the data used by your sources is outdated and inaccurate; due to the tremendous inconsistencies between surface level trends and satellite reports as well as the inconsistencies between numerous satellite reports (surface level readings have a greater rate of confidence), researches had to examine the methodology of satellite readings more closely. what they found was that early satellite readings suffered from numerous inaccuracies… given correcting adjustments, the satellite data largely supports the current climate model of global warming [2]. isn’t it strange that your sources don’t mention anything at all about any of this? do you think you might have been deceived?

    lastly, concerning my position of the power of human-induced co2 emissions: i don’t know. arguably, we can’t be sure as of now. we simply do not understand climate change well enough to make any sort of certain conclusions (or so it seems). if you noticed, i outlined that i felt that the science, on this matter, was “difficult.” i was simply taking issue with your ignorance on the matter of a rather secured reality, the fact that the globe is warming.

  5. nate

    because of the magnificent complexity of this issue, and because of the dynamics involved, i don’t have much want for typing up a novel here and going bonkers on the footnotes. if you want to have an organized and respectful debate on socialized medicine, perhaps on your show, i would be more than happy to offer a dissenting view.

Leave a Reply