Global Warming?

[Refefer]

I just finished reading Michael Crichton's most recent book, "State of Fear", and decided to to watch Al Gore's documentary/slide show/presentation "An Inconvenient Truth" to see both sides of the same argument. I assumed that since both were recently released that they might she a current events light on to it.

What does everyone else think? Is Global Warming a fact or a fiction? Anyone else read "State of Fear" or seen "An Inconvient Truth" that wishes to comment?

[Shizelbs]

Oh, this should be interesting.

Put me in the camp of skeptical of 'global warming'

I have a copy of State of Fear, but I need to actually read it.

[bobman1235]

I read "State of Fear", I haven't gotten around to "An Inconvenient Truth" yet.

Of course, keep in mind the former is fiction...

As for the issue, I'm skeptical about the SCOPE of the argument for global warming. There's obviously an environmental problem out there, but I hate how it's thrown about every time something happens in nature. We had an exceptionally rainy season? GLOBAL WARMING! Snowy winter? GLOBAL WARMING! Tsunami? GLOBAL WARMING!

[Demiurge]

State of Fear is an awesome book, a little slow paced, but it's well researched and documented.

Global Warming as a product of man is bullshit until someone can give us temperature data that goes back thousands and thousands of years, which we don't have. Could the planet be getting warmer? Yes. Is it a result of man? I doubt it. It's pretty arrogant to suggest that man can alter the climate and control the weather. The world is a very old and big place, and 'mother nature' is powerful.

If you read State of Fear you'd notice that the powers that be would alter the data given to them by scientists to alter the results of research. Ultimately making the data show something that falls into the pattern of their beliefs.

Al Gore is becoming Gary Busey, and will spin off the planet if he's not careful.

[Demiurge]

Of course, keep in mind the former is fiction...

The story is, but all of the data is real, researched, and documented in the back of the book.

[jdhdiggs]

I think man does have some effect but how much? My guess is not much at all and definately not beyond the normal variations that the planet has already seen. People point to the green house gases and other problems caused by man but they seem to forget that a single major volcanic eruption releases far more of those chemicals than all of mankind for a period of years could even hope to produce. Also, the sun is putting out more power than it ever has since it started to get measured.

I also think it's telling that there are scientists that say we are heading for an ice age as well. Which is it?

Are we polluting and killing the biosphere and causing global warming? Yes

Could we be doing better? Yes

Is global warming caused by humans a grave and immediate threat? NO!

[Refefer]

The story is, but all of the data is real, researched, and documented in the back of the book.

Have you watched An Inconvenient Truth yet? I recommend you do, it turns out that there is indeed temperature and carbon dioxide data going back 650 thousand years which he uses in his slide show. The data is collected from core samples in the ice. It makes for an interesting contrast between the two sides.

[ND13]

Global warming is a natural part of the earth's evolution and has happened many times in the multi-billion year history of earth and will occur again and again. It's the Earth's way of self-cleaning, like an oven, in a way.

With that said, we have contributed to the process being SLIGHTLY sped up, with emphasis on SLIGHTLY.

[jdhdiggs]

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

For more reading

[zombie boy 2000]

People forget (or aren't aware) how cyclical weather patterns are. What may seem like a major deviation in winter temperatures from those of recent memory, are in fact, par for the course when viewed from century to century.

[faster100]

if anyone thinks we only contribute "a little" is crazy... Car emmisions, cell phones, batteries, every other luxury that pollutes the earth.. and all the cases we don't know about where companies are dumping raw sewage and other bio hazardest stuff and over populated earth, and much more of all this stuff even compared to the 50's, the turn of the century even and hundreds of years before that that didnt have these items.. and it just so happens we NOW in our lifetime have Bad hurricanes, floods, Tsunami's, and all the other unreal things going on in the last several years..

Lets not be so arrogant that we have nothing to do with this, or oh just a small portion..

[ND13]

No, they never had bad hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, tornados, tsunamis, etc in the past, just during our lifetimes.:rolleyes:

Come on Cliff, your smarter than that. This shit is just as cyclical as a our upgraditus.:D

The Earth is extremely resilient and will recover, just as it did after the ice age and numerous other times.

Man-kind's dominance is just a blip in the history line.

[jdhdiggs]

Cliff, You got any evidence beyond your supposition? Do some research. On global warming we have minimal impact. The pollution stuff, that you have some grounds on, but global warming? Not so much. Or at least the open, scientifically reviewed studies have found very little evidence.

[bobman1235]

Ha! I think tsunami's are a perfect example of how people just clump every single natural disaster in with "global warming". Explain to me, how ANYTHING in the environment, even if there was EXTREME global warming, could cause an undersea earthquake, which is where a tsunami comes from. A tsunami is a gigantic wave caused by an earthquake under the ocean. If man caused that by driving too many SUVs, then we're all doomed.

[PolkThug]

Ask the polar bears if global warming is real.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13288936/

[faster100]

I can oppose like you can think we have nothing to do with it..

where are your opposing facts? do you study about this as well?

was thier anyone around hundreds or thousands of years ago that is still here? and what real evidence do we have.. Its all speculation IMO...

you can say, its not us, I can say yes it is... yada yada.. does anyone know? NOt really...

That's my take, we are effing the earth up..

will i drive my SUV, use my cell phone, computer and dump motor oil in the yard, LOL YUP!!

so lets have a disscusion, you arent right and im not either... However i think i am :D

Now noel, get in the flea market where you belong and buy some of my gear im blowing out :)

[Demiurge]

There's another reason I don't believe it.

[jdhdiggs]

Here you go Cliff, 2,000 of average temps for the Northern Hemisphere. Looks like we finally recovered from the cold snap. :)

More can be found: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Proxies.htm

[faster100]

Oh stop being so darn anal about topics and just discuss it.. your right, im right... you arent a scientist as much as im not..


I can find as many "links and graphs" on my side as you can against it..


We are still effing up the earth, like it or lump it.. :D

[jdhdiggs]

Or we could just talk in circles and not say anything....

You were the one saying that we were having more than "just a small portion" of the changes. There are many historical records all over the place. The "hockey" stick chart Gore uses has many errors/misrepresentations:

1). Check the scale
2). Global warming (on the chart) started significantly before the industrial revolution
3). Temps are still within the historical norms for the past 2,000 years
4). Very selective data set

I added it for your further edification

Try doing a little research. You're just saying "we're making a difference because I think so" with nothing supporting it.

[ND13]

He said edification:eek:

[faster100]

typical club polk manor, if you can't show me a graph, chart and double blind test you can't have an opinion.. :)

Ok, we have nothing to do with global warming... see ya on the other side :D

[PolkThug]

He said edification:eek:

Ban!

[PhantomOG]

where are your opposing facts? do you study about this as well?

you asked for opposing facts then whine because you don't have any yourself to counter the data he has presented? pretty weak...

[jdhdiggs]

Cliff, I sincerely invite you to do the research! We DO have an impact but it is VERY small compared to the effects of the sun, ocean's, volcano's, and other natural causes.

No one should ever argue that we have "no" impact. Just like you carrying a bucket of water out of the ocean. The water level dropped, but was it significant? Get the point?

[HBombToo]

I think that natural phonomena has a much larger and immediate impact to these trends than all man made contributions. A large vulcanic eruption pumps more crap into the atmosphere in a short period of time verse longer term industrial pollutants.

[PolkThug]

A large vulcanic eruption pumps more crap into the atmosphere in a short period of time verse longer term industrial pollutants.

But is it the same crap? Is the crap that spews from a volcano the exact same as the crap that spews from a coal burning power plant?

[faster100]

Early, we can agree to disagree on some things , i didn't do research.. your right. my personal idea's here.

Phantom, The whinning comment is stupid.. and frankly im tired of it. we can have a cival discussion, without name calling..

I'm enjoying a little debate, don't ruin it :)


and volcano's have been around for centuries and are in one form or another, a natural accuring thing.. sludge, sewage, old batteries, nucleur (sp) wastes is not natural

[jdhdiggs]

But is it the same crap? Is the crap that spews from a volcano the exact same as the crap that spews from a coal burning power plant?

CO2 is CO2, SO2 is SO2, CO is CO... All the greehouse gases are released. Hell Volcanos can even spew cooler stuff like aresenic and radioactive materials.

[PolkThug]

Ok, how many tons of pollutants were put in the air last year from volcanos vs. tons of pollutants put in the air last year from humans?

[bikezappa]

jdhdiggs

Thanks for informing me of the junkscience site. It was very informative. Data and facts are very boring to many people because they are hard to understand and require many hours of time. They are not quick. And today most things need to be quick to be popular. Global warming is very complicated with many factors that can affect the weather now and in the future. I don't know enough to have any comments on the subject. I also believe most people here have a similar knowledge level on global warming as I do. I think many people feel very strongly about global warming however, but their opinions are not based on science and data but appear to be based on similar things like religious faith. Not a good way to start a informative discussion on a complicated topic.

[jdhdiggs]

Cliff, I think you are a great example why this topic does need to be brought up and discussed publicly (In a larger forum than CP). Most people don't have the background and haven't done the research to come to any informed conclusion so what they here from the news must be right.

You would be surprised by the amount of pseudo-science BS that is broadcast daily and gobbled up as fact by the public at large.

[fish369]

A large vulcanic eruption pumps more crap into the atmosphere in a short period of time verse longer term industrial pollutants.

Well put, HBombToo, the former Ms.Dixie Lee Ray former nuclear reglatory commission chairwoman, she has some great books on the subject, look her up.

[HBombToo]

I'm with jd on this one... he just beat me to it.

In no way is my position condoning polluting the environment, I'm just saying the environment has much more immediate impact than we can imagine.

[Drumingman]

Earth heats up, Earth cools down, like the stock market it goes up and down.
The USA is blamed for every little problem when although we have cleaned up our act, We pollute a lot less than most other countries, but go ahead and say how bad we are. Al Gore wants do away with cars altogether saying their the biggest threat to all of mankind, Poppycock. I wonder what kind of transportation he uses? Fact is, The USA was much more polluted in the 1800's than it is today due to a lot of coal burning and wood buring to help people to heat their homes and businesses in the effort to keep from freezing to death in the winter. I've also heard that these warming effects come from cows farting, and ya know, their absolutly right, those nice cows emiting too many gasses. I also hear that todays automobiles , when running, emit less ozone destroying gasses than a 1960's car, turned off and sitting in a driveway, Another tall tail that I do not believe.

What say you :eek:

[HBombToo]

the former Ms.Dixie Lee Ray former nuclear reglatory commission chairwoman, she has some great books on the subject, look her up.



Thanks for the tip. At least I'll have something more to google other than the Tastefull Babe Thread here at work;)

[faster100]

Glad im a example... Its not religious based by me i can assure you.. and its certainly not from the news...

It only makes sense, ok we arent the deciding factor.. but its more then just alittle impact... I don't need no stinkin degree or chart to tell me that.. :D


and im not picketing, or a tree hugger... I drive a gas guzzler SUV.. I pollute im sure , i eat red meat.. LOL... Its my opinion,

[Demiurge]

I read a lot books on the matter, and they all debunk the junk science that tries to scare people and give them way more -- uhh, credit than they deserve.

[jdhdiggs]

Ok, how many tons of pollutants were put in the air last year from volcanos vs. tons of pollutants put in the air last year from humans?

The Kona volcano in Hawaii alone produces more produces more pollutants than 3,500+ typical power plants (1,200 tons of SO2 every day)

In WA, Mt. St. Helens produces 50-250 tons of SO2 per day. The rest of the state combined makes 120 tons

These are relatively little leakers.

My wife will have more info, I'll ask her later.

[PhantomOG]

Phantom, The whinning comment is stupid.. and frankly im tired of it. we can have a cival discussion, without name calling..

I'm enjoying a little debate, don't ruin it :)

where is any name calling? You asked for facts then backtracked and wanted to leave hard data out. In a discussion like this, opinions backed only with personal feelings as opposed to data isn't a debate -- its banter. If that's what you want, feel free, I won't get in your way.

[faster100]

ok ok come on now...

saying im whinning certainly sounds like name calling..

Banter? that must comprise every discussion on this forum then about audio..

add something, then... what's your wisdom? today

[PolkThug]

The Kona volcano in Hawaii alone produces more produces more pollutants than 3,500+ typical power plants (1,200 tons of SO2 every day)

In WA, Mt. St. Helens produces 50-250 tons of SO2 per day. The rest of the state combined makes 120 tons

These are relatively little leakers.

My wife will have more info, I'll ask her later.

Cool thats the info I was looking for.

Time to build some smokestacks on the pretty volcanos!

[PolkThug]

More data from usgs.gov (I am now officially anti-volcano)

"Kilauea Volcano on the Island of Hawai`i emits about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas each day during periods of sustained eruption. Air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and other volcanic gases became a frequent problem on the island in mid-1986, when the volcano's ongoing eruption, which began in 1983, changed from episodes of spectacular lava fountaining (shown here) to a nearly constant but quiet outflow of lava and gas."

[jdhdiggs]

The SO2 is "acid rain" and makes up between 0.01-5% of a volcanoes total emmisions. CO2 makes up between 3%-40% of the gases released. Most of the gas released is deadly dyhydrogen oxide, but the amount released is inconsequential compared to other sources.

My guesses as to source cause of the gases:
CO2/CO:
1) biomass (Decay and living)
2) natural-other (Volcano's and such
3) manmade

S02
1) Volcanic activity
98415025) man

;)

[faster100]

I have some global testing to do fella's... i'm out for now.. or is it bring the girls to the park time.. um yeah..

later, :D

[jdhdiggs]

More data from usgs.gov (I am now officially anti-volcano)

"Kilauea Volcano on the Island of Hawai`i emits about 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2) gas each day during periods of sustained eruption. Air pollution caused by sulfur dioxide and other volcanic gases became a frequent problem on the island in mid-1986, when the volcano's ongoing eruption, which began in 1983, changed from episodes of spectacular lava fountaining (shown here) to a nearly constant but quiet outflow of lava and gas."

But they've been doing that for millions of years and everythings not dead yet... No need to hate the poor little volcano's. It just makes you realize how insignificant man's power can be.

[faster100]

Oh get off it, :rolleyes:

[Demiurge]

But they've been doing that for millions of years and everythings not dead yet... No need to hate the poor little volcano's. It just makes you realize how insignificant man's power can be.

Indeed.

[PolkThug]

But they've been doing that for millions of years and everythings not dead yet... No need to hate the poor little volcano's. It just makes you realize how insignificant man's power can be.

Hold on!

According to the US Dept of Energy, current annual US sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants are at 11 million tons.

That's 30,136 tons a day. Your previous numbers are way too low.

Conclusion:
Volcano= bad
Humans = bad

:D

[jdhdiggs]

Hold on!

According to the US Dept of Energy, current annual US sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants are at 11 million tons.

That's 30,136 tons a day. Your previous numbers are way too low.

Conclusion:
Volcano= bad
Humans = bad

:D

That was from 2 small volcanoes venting (Not really eruptions). Check out Indonesia, ocean trenches, etc...

Mt Ponatubo released 12,000,000 tons in one eruption so Major Volcano eruption = US for a year = Bad

A seemingly good sight: http://toms.umbc.edu/

[petrym]

I want to watch the next Ice Age when Alaska, Canada, and most of the northern United States will be scraped off -- I wonder if Superfund will cover that cleanup after the ice retreats?

[PolkThug]

Mt Ponatubo released 12,000,000 tons in one eruption so Major Volcano eruption = US for a year = Bad

That bastard!

Add in the coal burning plants in Mexico and all the motor vehicles and .... *cough*


....can't breath....

You should see the thick smoke pour off my drag radials! yeehaw!

[ND13]

Al Gore wants do away with cars altogether saying their the biggest threat to all of mankind, Poppycock. I wonder what kind of transportation he uses?


When I worked at Opryland Hotel in 1990, he drove a POS Toyota Corrola, but Tipper drove a new Jaguar. I know because I valet parked them.

[unc2701]

I'm not familiar with junkscience.com's global warming arguments, but I would not trust a damn thing he puts up there. I've done a bunch of work with air pollution and health effects and his "debunking" of some of the major studies of the last 10 years consist mainly of lies, ommisions, twisting of facts, and piss poor statistical analysis.

So, take what you find there with a big grain of salt. Actually, ingore what you find there. He comes down on the side of industry no matter what the facts are.

[jdhdiggs]

I'm not familiar with junkscience.com's global warming arguments, but I would not trust a damn thing he puts up there. I've done a bunch of work with air pollution and health effects and his "debunking" of some of the major studies of the last 10 years consist mainly of lies, ommisions, twisting of facts, and piss poor statistical analysis.

So, take what you find there with a big grain of salt. Actually, ingore what you find there. He comes down on the side of industry no matter what the facts are.

That's funny, my wife works in the environmental engineering field and that sight matches most, if not all, of their findings in the field she works in. What sources were you using? Where are these other facts?

It would be odd that he'd be dead on in some areas and so far off in others. What studies were you part of?

[Shizelbs]

You would be surprised by the amount of pseudo-science BS that is broadcast daily and gobbled up as fact by the public at large.

I swear some days thats all my job revolves around. Trying to convince patients, and sometimes physicians, what they heard is wrong and why.

[faster100]

That's funny, my wife works in the environmental engineering field


explains the agenda here,

[ND13]

But I thought everything you hear on the radio, tv and read on the internet was true:rolleyes:

[jdhdiggs]

I swear some days thats all my job revolves around. Trying to convince patients, and sometimes physicians, what they heard is wrong and why.

But shouldn't I be trying levitra?

[faster100]

But I thought everything you hear on the radio, tv and read on the internet was true:rolleyes:


Only if it's in favor to your argument, other wise it's all banter :D

[unc2701]

Dude, he does no reseach, he has no data. Whenever something is published giving a completely no-shit result (up pollution levels and asthamtic kids start wheezing) he comes back with "correlation is not causation". That's true. Except that there are hundreds of studies showing the biologic pathways that cause the inflamation which leads to the health effects. So causation is established and the epidemiologic studies show that it happens on a large scale at ambient levels. Then he ususally throws in some lies about how the study was funded, debunked by other scientists, or otherwise flawed. A good example would be the harvard 6 cities study- go read what he has to say about that, then we'll talk.

Now. That's just talking about the air pollution/ health effects. I'm not an expert in global warming, but I really know my shit when it comes to health effects. I spend about half my time doing this, and about half doing pharma research and I'm well qualified to say that most of what's on that website is poorly written BS.

[jdhdiggs]

Post the links please...

[Demiurge]

Dude, he does no reseach, he has no data. Whenever something is published giving a completely no-shit result (up pollution levels and asthamtic kids start wheezing) he comes back with "correlation is not causation". That's true. Except that there are hundreds of studies showing the biologic pathways that cause the inflamation which leads to the health effects. So causation is established and the epidemiologic studies show that it happens on a large scale at ambient levels. Then he ususally throws in some lies about how the study was funded, debunked by other scientists, or otherwise flawed. A good example would be the harvard 6 cities study- go read what he has to say about that, then we'll talk.

Now. That's just talking about the air pollution/ health effects. I'm not an expert in global warming, but I really know my shit when it comes to health effects. I spend about half my time doing this, and about half doing pharma research and I'm well qualified to say that most of what's on that website is poorly written BS.

You make a living with it, no wonder you want to propgate the fears.

[jdhdiggs]

explains the agenda here,

Huh? She's with me on this...

Agenda? I'm just not getting your intent here Cliff. Did we hurt your feelings or something?

[Demiurge]

Huh? She's with me on this...

Say it more slowly.

[markmarc]

The earth is constantly evolving, changing. however, man is not helping the situation.
It is interesting to note that the two most acclaimed US atmospheric scientists are on opposite sides of the issue. One (I can't remember his name) is convinced man has less than 20 years to clean up his act or else we will go over the tipping point. On the other hand Dr. Grey (famous for his pretty accurate hurricane predictions) says a shift back in temperatures is just a few years away.

One side is that Phoenix's overnight temps are between 10-15 degrees higher than the 1970's. The polar ice cap is shrinking, Alaska's glaciers have retreated several miles at points. International pilots will tell you of mass pollution clouds over India and into the ocean to the east. Mt. Kilamanjaro's snow cap is all but gone, and there is a massive coral reef die-off going on.

On the other side, Volcanoes spew out massive amounts of various pollutants, temps and weather patterns have always fluctuated, rainfall is higher in some areas.

We can all agree that earth has, and is capable of healing itself from natural changes, it's known as nature's balancing act. IMHO, as a decently well-read and rational thinking human, modern man's additional impact is causing issues that the earth's natural ability to heal is struggling to find a new balance point.

It would be wise and prudent for all mankind to be reasonable and judicious in assisting mother nature in limiting our pollutive impact on the planet. There are many things that we can do that is both wise and financially beneficial. I combine trips, turn down the thermostat at night to 60, recycle as much as possible, limit my use of fertilizers. It isn't much but it makes sense.

[faster100]

That's funny, my wife works in the environmental engineering field and that sight matches most, if not all, of their findings in the field she works in.


hurt my feelings? Nope..

your wife is in the business, so your a hardcore supporter.. hence the agenda to back down all my opinions..

Just like someone just mentioned UNC is in the business and why he has his feelings on the matter.. what's good for the goose right

[unc2701]

You make a living with it, no wonder you want to propgate the fears.

I could give a shit about the results. I just get paid to do analysis and there's much more money to be had on the pharma side. I just do this 'cause i'm so fucking good at it.

here's a sampling of his hard-on for the Six Cities study:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=six+cities&domains=www.junkscience.com&sitesearch=www.junkscience.com

If you want to go point by point, I'll be happy to oblige, but I hope you're up to speed on non-linear random effect models. I'd rather not get into what I'm working on, but it's pretty no-shit. Air pollution makes asthmatic kids sick.

[faster100]

.

excellent post

although i can't express my feelings like markmarc.. Its the way i feel as well..

well said

[jdhdiggs]

hurt my feelings? Nope..

your wife is in the business, so your a hardcore supporter.. hence the agenda to back down all my opinions..

Just like someone just mentioned UNC is in the business and why he has his feelings on the matter.. what's good for the goose right

She works in environmental cleanup and that's why I don't think humans have as much impact as the extremists claim... Right... Most rational people would think we'd be in opposite camps. ;)

[faster100]

Look, it's all good.. Great discussion..

if you can stop the "hurt feelings" and "whinning" comments people make.. we could continue a good talk :)

[jdhdiggs]

I could give a shit about the results. I just get paid to do analysis and there's much more money to be had on the pharma side. I just do this 'cause i'm so fucking good at it.

here's a sampling of his hard-on for the Six Cities study:
http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=six+cities&domains=www.junkscience.com&sitesearch=www.junkscience.com

If you want to go point by point, I'll be happy to oblige, but I hope you're up to speed on non-linear random effect models. I'd rather not get into what I'm working on, but it's pretty no-shit. Air pollution makes asthmatic kids sick.

Uh, he agreed with your supposition of Air pollution = sick, asmathic kids. What he did was challenge why the data wasn't released when asked and showed how the relative scale of the effects are lower than other controllable environmental factors. I'll keep reading, but I'm not getting your objection....

edit: Ok, he points to some discussion of incluiding addional factors that knock the conclusions out the window. Why wouldn't that be a concern. If you are putting together policy, shouldn't you have considered all of the possibilities?

I'm up on non-linear econometric models... I'm guessing their based on the same premise. :)

Further edit: Those articles are collected on the sight but are written by different people. Just a note.

[jdhdiggs]

Look, it's all good.. Great discussion..

if you can stop the "hurt feelings" and "whinning" comments people make.. we could continue a good talk :)

Hey, you were the one who said I had an agenda. You know, what's good for the goose... ;)

[faster100]

you do, you had to mention your wife was in the business.. and for what? to substansiate (sp) your position... Mine are just opinions, i need no backup

[Demiurge]

Unfortunately, even in this argument data doesn't mean much unless it's complete. Cutting off your figures at various intervals can make that part of the data look completely different than when it's viewed as a whole. That's what has been going on in this debate forever.

The fact remains is that we do not have weather and climate patterns that go back to the start of time. Without that you're simply not grasping the scope of the man made phenomenon that is global warming, nor how long man has even had a chance to effect it -- if at all. We're a blip on the timeline, which shows how arrogant humans can be.

You can make data look scary as hell if you want to, but it's irrational. I think that's the big part of the argument, what's rational to worry about and what isn't.

[jdhdiggs]

you do, you had to mention your wife was in the business.. and for what? to substansiate (sp) your position... Mine are just opinions, i need no backup

I just had to preserve this... :eek:

[faster100]

your unreal, :D

[jdhdiggs]

Unfortunately, even in this argument data doesn't mean much unless it's complete. Cutting off your figures at various intervals can make that part of the data look completely different than when it's viewed as a whole. That's what has been going on in this debate forever.

The fact remains is that we do not have weather and climate patterns that go back to the start of time. Without that you're simply not grasping the scope of the man made phenomenon that is global warming, nor how long man has even had a chance to effect it -- if at all. We're a blip on the timeline, which shows how arrogant humans can be.

You can make data look scary as hell if you want to, but it's irrational. I think that's the big part of the argument, what's rational to worry about and what isn't.

Demi, the piece you're also missing is that we DO have records of what was in the air going back millions of years (no temp though). What can be found is that the current "causes" for warming were much worse at past times, yet the Earth still attained it's current state.

[unc2701]

1) The data was reanalyized by an indepedent commision agreed upon by industry and havard. The took into account all the errors mentioned by Milloy as making the study flawed. Even after doing everything possible to bias the study into finding nothing, they came up essentially the same results. Milloy claims the whole thing was debunked.

2)pope didn't want to give up the data because it's very easy to do a crappy analysis that showing nothing- something that industry intended to do. After a long debate they agreed on the third party mentioned above.

3)Milloy makes it sound like it was just severely sick asthmatics, etc, but that was not the conclusion of the independent analysis.

4)Industry took the EPA to court over the new PM2.5 standards. The Supreme court decided that the EPA should not in any way consider the cost implications of its standards. It's mandate in setting these standards is solely to consider the health of the population of the US.

5)Congress specifically funded a followup study to look into this further. That study found that health effects can be found at even lower levels than the NEW standards.

Milloy leaves most this out (note that a bunch of the stuff on that google search wasn't written by him). Basically, he pulls a Michael Moore and cherry picks the talking pionts that support his argument and leaves out a massive amount of data opposing his view.

You're not going to find the opposition on his site... All I'm asking is that you treat him like you would Michael Moore. He has an agenda, and it's what he's not telling you that matters.

[Demiurge]

Demi, the piece you're also missing is that we DO have records of what was in the air going back millions of years (no temp though). What can be found is that the current "causes" for warming were much worse at past times, yet the Earth still attained it's current state.

Temp is what I am getting at. Saying it's been getting 1 degree warmer for the last 50 years (For example)is more shocking when viewed over a 100 year time frame as opposed to oh....4.5 BILLION years.

[pmckeealaska]

If you think globhal warming is a myth, you should come up here to Alaska or anywhere else in the northern hemisphere. Global warming is a fact of life up here. I've seen changes in just the 18 years I've been here. If anyone wants to know about the science behind global climate change research, I suggest going to the web site for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I know some of the folks on the panel aqnd they are all well qualified scientists and objective. They have documented evidence of increasing global temperatures tied to the start of the industrial revolution. Does that mean they are saying that man is the sole cause of global warming? No, of course not. I would pay little attention to folks like Gore or Chriton on this issue and see what the folks that know the most about it are saying. Whether or not man is having a huge effect on the worlds climate is debatable, whether or not global warming is happening is not. This should not be a political issue. We should pay attention to the experts whose job it is to research these things, rather than to the Rush Limbaughs or Al Gores of the world who obviously have an agenda. Wake up people!

[Demiurge]

A fact without facts. ;)

[PhantomOG]

A fact without facts. ;)

Oy... opinions need no backup!! :cool:

[HBombToo]

Mine are just opinions, i need no backup

WOW!:confused: ...

I should try this statement the next time I'm trying to pitch my anual cap x requirements with the executives:D

[faster100]

twist it, turn it. mix it... I meant its my opinion, may not be factual according to you .. But its all mine. :D

[Skynut]

Ok here is the real skinny according to Skynut.

The Earth goes through cycles, it always has and always will.
Man has an effect on the planet. It would be ignorant to think we do not.
The Earth will recover from this next phase it is going through, it will not be destroyed by global warming. We may not live through this cycle but the Earth will certainly be here.
These are all my opnions.

[Skynut]

I also believe I read somewhere that the Earth has flipped magnetic poles many times in it's history and that could have an effect on the climate.

Also I think there is evidence that the polar caps used to be elsewhere on the planet.

I also seem to remember that the Earth has changed it's equatorial region by spinning out of balance until it settles into a new groove. This was supposedly caused by the polar caps moving toward the equator and throwing the Earth out of balance, once they melt the water balances everything out.

Many if not all of these things may be happening here and be the natural cause of all this hysteria.

[bikezappa]

We should pay attention to the experts whose job it is to research these things, rather than to the Rush Limbaughs or Al Gores of the world who obviously have an agenda. Wake up people![/QUOTE]

This makes very good sense to me. Would you listen to Rush's opinion on speakers? These people have an agenda. There are experts that have spent their life trying to ask questions and find answers regarding to Global Warming.

I don't know shit about global warming and you gentle reader shouldn't pay any attention to my opinions regarding global warming. People living in Northen climates don't need a therometer to know something is changing.

The question now is why?

[ND13]

I know what this thread needs.......MORE COWBELL!!!!!

[Demiurge]

Nah, too much Methane. :(

[Shizelbs]

Lol.

[Skynut]

I know what this thread needs.......MORE COWBELL!!!!!


I don't care who you are.

Thats funny.

[MacLeod]

WOW! This thread went 5 pages in less than a day!

OK, I am not going to go back and read all 5 pages so if my post has already been covered, I apologize.

Global Warming according to MacLeod:

I believe the earth is going thru a warming period. Thats hard to disdute. However I do not believe mankind had anything to do with it. Just like mankind didnt have anything to do with the earth going thru a cooling period back in the 70's (remember the "global cooling" paranoia?).

Also, the polar ice caps on Mars are melting just like ours. Does that mean there are SUV's on Mars?

Here is my theory. About 93 million miles that way, there is a big old ball of gas millions of times the mass of the earth, burning via nuclear fusion at millions of degrees and its going to be doing so for 10 billion years. Now, something that uncomprehendably (is that a word?) massive and complex aint going to burn at the same intensity forever. Its going to go thru phases and when it does, it will affect our climate as well.

Plus, our orbit around the sun isnt set in stone. It varies and sometimes we'll move closer and sometimes further away. This will also affect the climate.

Another interesting tidbit about the greenhouse effect. Did you know that 98% of that which absorb infra red radiation and create the greehouse effect is water vapor and clouds?!?!? That means if we were to somehow get rid of all the methane, carbon dioxide and others we'd decrease the greehouse effect by only 2%? That comes from a paper written by Richard Lindzen who is a prof of meteorology at the Mass Institute of Technology.

When considering how unbelievably massive and complex this planet, its atmosphere, the sun and this solar system are and how many BILLIONS of years theyve been around, does it really seem logical that humans in only the last 100 years and while inhabiting only 11% of the surface, are chaging the global climate?

[aaharvel]

that makes sense to me

i don't know much about global warming and I don't pretend to, but i will watch Gore's movie.
I'll also be taking it with a grain of salt.

[Demiurge]

...and Scientists the world over call Gore's movie bunk, as reported by the Canada Free Press... (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm)


Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

OUCH!

[schwarcw]

Build more nuke plants! Then, build some more.

[unc2701]

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

OUCH!

Bang up job there. A quote from a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming. Guess it doesn't exist, after all.

[POLKOHOLIC]

I read "State of Fear", I haven't gotten around to "An Inconvenient Truth" yet.

Of course, keep in mind the former is fiction...

As for the issue, I'm skeptical about the SCOPE of the argument for global warming. There's obviously an environmental problem out there, but I hate how it's thrown about every time something happens in nature. We had an exceptionally rainy season? GLOBAL WARMING! Snowy winter? GLOBAL WARMING! Tsunami? GLOBAL WARMING!

Perhaps its the fact that all of those events have occured almost consecutively.

[pjdami]

The Global Warming Topic is as controversial as cables and interconnects. Dr. William Gray had an interesting interview and he's been studying this kind of stuff for over 50 years. Some interesting insight from someone who has made a career out of meteorology.

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray
by James K. Glassman (September 12, 2005)

Meteorologist Dr. William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting. Each December, six months before the start of hurricane season, the now 75-year-old Gray and his team issue a long-range prediction of the number of major tropical storms that will arise in the Atlantic Ocean basin, as well as the number of hurricanes (with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more) and intense hurricanes (with winds of at least 111 mph). This year, Gray expects more activity, with 15 named storms, including 8 hurricanes. Four of them, he says, will be intense.

James Glassman: Dr. Gray, in the September issue of Discover Magazine, there’s a remarkable interview with you. You’re called the world’s most famous hurricane…

Dr. William Gray: Well that – you have to talk to my critics about that. I don’t think they would agree with you.

Glassman: Well you certainly…

Gray: I’ve been around a long time, yes. I’ve been around studying hurricanes over 50 years now, I’m an old guy. Yes.

Glassman: Well, you’re in the hurricane forecasting business among other things?

Gray: Well, we’re in the seasonal hurricane forecasting business, and monthly. We don’t do the short range, you know, one to two day crucial forecasts. That can only be done by one group at the National Hurricane Center. But we certainly do a lot of forecasting for different parts of the globe and the hurricane from a seasonal, monthly point of view. Yes.

Glassman: And from a seasonal, monthly point of view, you had been predicting a growing number of hurricanes. Now, my question is in the wake of Katrina and some of the statements that we’ve heard immediately afterwards by advocates of the global warming theory – is global warming behind this increase in hurricanes?

Gray: I am very confident that it’s not. I mean we have had global warming. That’s not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular. And we’ve had, at least the last 10 years, we’ve had a pick up in the Atlantic basin major storms. But in the earlier period, if we go back from 1970 through the middle ‘90s, that 25 year period – even though the globe was warming slightly, the number of major storms was down, quite a bit down.

Now, another feature of this is that the Atlantic operates differently. The other global storm basins, the Atlantic only has about 12 percent of the global storms. And in the other basins, the last 10 years – even though the Atlantic major storm activity has gone up greatly the last 10 years. In the other global basins, it’s slightly gone down. You know, both frequency and strength of storms have not changed in these other basins. If anything, they’ve slightly gone down. So if this was a global warming thing, you would think, “Well gee, all of the basins should be responding much the same.”

Glassman: You’re familiar with what your colleagues believe. Do you think many hurricane experts would take a different point of view, and would say, “Oh, it’s global warming that’s causing hurricanes?”

Gray: No. All my colleagues that have been around a long time – I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the national hurricane center – we all don’t think this is human-induced global warming. And, the people that say that it is are usually those that know very little about hurricanes. I mean, there’s almost an equation you can write the degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes to increase is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms.

Now there’s a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there’s a lot of money to be made on this. You know, when governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

Glassman: We thank you very, very much for this interview. Thank you, Dr. Gray.

Gray: Well thank you for asking me.

I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we’re going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it all was. The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse gases.

Glassman: Well thank you very much for giving us your time.

[PolkThug]

I found the original interview:

Mr. White: When you're dealing with a store like this, they're insured up the ass. They're not supposed to give you any resistance whatsoever. If you get a customer, or an employee, who thinks he's Charles Bronson, take the butt of your gun and smash their nose in. Everybody jumps. He falls down screaming, blood squirts out of his nose, nobody says fucking shit after that. You might get some bitch talk shit to you, but give her a look like you're gonna smash her in the face next, watch her shut the fuck up. Now if it's a manager, that's a different story. Managers know better than to fuck around, so if you get one that's giving you static, he probably thinks he's a real cowboy, so you gotta break that son of a bitch in two. If you wanna know something and he won't tell you, cut off one of his fingers. The little one. Then tell him his thumb's next. After that he'll tell you if he wears ladies underwear. I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.

Dr. Gray: Well that – you have to talk to my critics about that. I don’t think they would agree with you.

Glassman: Well you certainly…

Mr. White: The choice between doing ten years and taking out some stupid motherfucker, ain't no choice at all. But I ain't no madman either.

Glassman: Well thank you very much for giving us your time.

[Demiurge]

Bang up job there. A quote from a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming. Guess it doesn't exist, after all.

It's more than a quote from one scientist, read the article if you're so inclined. I just posted the part that slams Al Gore the hardest because I don't like him. :D

[up2youjoe]

Global warming has been brought to you by the same schmucks that brought you recycling and no oil drilling in Anwar. These morons would have blamed capitalism for global cooling during the ice age because we were making snow on Killington ski resort for skiers.

The earth has a limited amount of resources and when we use them up, the earth will sit for a billion years or so and regenerate itself. We are nothing but a small pimple on its @ss. What we do can't change much in the way the earth runs itself.

Hey I know, lets use more nuke plants to cut down on fossil fuel emissions. Farken same people won't let us. Windmills? "Not in my backyard" they say. Fark em. They have no answers, only complaints.

I am certain that within the next 50 years, these fanatical Muslims will get their hands on some nukes and blammo. Again, the earth will sit and regenerate itself. No big deal.

Hey Al Gore and friends..... STOP FLYING AROUND IN PRIVATE JETS.

Now I will go outside and run my car for an hour just to pollute the air some more.

[Demiurge]

haha :D

[bikezappa]

I'll tell you a story. As I said I don't know shit about global warming but I do know a little something about the ozone layer. I worked at a company that was making parts for a detector for ozone to be lauched into space. This detector was an improvement over the past detectors, more accurate. What they determined with this detector was that the ozone layer at the poles of the earth grew and shrunk every year just like the seasons. And the photos that we saw on the news were when the ozone layer was at it's smallest. The news stories also said that the ozone layer was going away based on these photos. The news stories also never said that the ozone layer came back at the poles every year. It appears that the ozone layer at the poles is very similar to the way the tides of the oceans work.

Bottom line, don't rely on TV or radio news or the polk forum for any 30 second news bits of information. They are lies and distortions for political and profit reasons. Look however at TV and radio programs that have guests with related experience and good data. If you want to know what is going on get out of your easy chair, put down that can of beer and do some investigating and experiments yourself.

[Demiurge]

Everyone is biased.

[unc2701]

It's more than a quote from one scientist, read the article if you're so inclined. I just posted the part that slams Al Gore the hardest because I don't like him. :D

You don't like Al Gore? How can you not like Al Gore? That's like not liking Canada! No ones cares! It's just there- cold, boring and useless. Now Hillary, I can see not liking that bitch.


Anyhow, my point was that global warming is a complex subject and anyone can go out and find quotes (or, say, peer reviewed papers) both for and against it. I only know one person who's actually qualified to have an opinion and his official answer is "Hey, isn't it your turn to buy the next round?" Cheap bastard.

[MacLeod]

I'll tell you a story. As I said I don't know shit about global warming but I do know a little something about the ozone layer. I worked at a company that was making parts for a detector for ozone to be lauched into space. This detector was an improvement over the past detectors, more accurate. What they determined with this detector was that the ozone layer at the poles of the earth grew and shrunk every year just like the seasons. And the photos that we saw on the news were when the ozone layer was at it's smallest. The news stories also said that the ozone layer was going away based on these photos. The news stories also never said that the ozone layer came back at the poles every year. It appears that the ozone layer at the poles is very similar to the way the tides of the oceans work.


Yeah that ozone pandamonia didnt last too long. Thankfully it was easily debunked and was done away with before it caught on.

All you had to do was look at where the holes in the ozone were; they were over Antarctica! If it were foundries and industries that were destroying the ozone layer why in the hell wasnt the hole sitting above them instead of directly over the LEAST populated part of the earth.

[pmckeealaska]

They weren't over thoe areas because earth's wind currents move outward from the equator moving many if not most pollutants to the poles, hence the ozone holes in both poles, and the reason why POP's (persistant organis pollutants) also migrate to the poles. If you're going to be critical of something, try at least to know what the hell you're talking about.

[jdhdiggs]

Then why was the hole over the Southern pole when a vast majority of all pollution is produced in the Northern hemisphere?

[Demiurge]

They weren't over thoe areas because earth's wind currents move outward from the equator moving many if not most pollutants to the poles, hence the ozone holes in both poles, and the reason why POP's (persistant organis pollutants) also migrate to the poles. If you're going to be critical of something, try at least to know what the hell you're talking about.

Wow, try not to be an indignant ass.

[pmckeealaska]

Far better than being an ignorant ass. As I said before, at least have an informed opinion. If I offended your delicate sensibilities than I'm sorry.

[MacLeod]

They weren't over thoe areas because earth's wind currents move outward from the equator moving many if not most pollutants to the poles, hence the ozone holes in both poles, and the reason why POP's (persistant organis pollutants) also migrate to the poles. If you're going to be critical of something, try at least to know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, I see. Pollution is worse after its been blown tens of thousands of miles away. I get it now! Thats why there is no smog over LA; its all over Antarctica.

[PolkThug]

Club Polk Scientists Rule!!

[pmckeealaska]

It's like beating one's head against the wall. I simply stated a basic fact of climatology. If you choose to ignore fact, then do so at your peril. Last time I checked the planet doesn't pay attention to politics. It just does what it does. Oh, and by the way, most of the pollution in LA is smog, which is a lower atmosphere pollutant and a stable air mass that doesn't move very much. The same holds true for places like Mexico City.

[ND13]

Shhhhhh............listen...can't you hear it????

A GREEN COWBELL!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

[MacLeod]

It's like beating one's head against the wall. I simply stated a basic fact of climatology.

No, you were being an asshole. There is a difference.

[tonyb]

This just shows us how god awfull stupid we are.We believe every
30 second media bite without any fact or research before forming
an opinion.Let me sum up the whole global warming thing.Now it's been a few years since the old school day's,but I seem to recall at least 5 ice ages in our history,before man ever walked on this planet.Hmmm.... how did that ice receed?Planet warm up a bit?Wait a second,how can that be??? There was no
politics then,no SUV's,no factory's,no hair spray,no club Polk.
WE ARE DOOMED I TELL YOU....DOOMED!!!!!!!

[markmarc]

ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/omi/images/aerosol/FULLDAY_AERO.PNGJust a few facts. The ozone hole was discovered in the early 1980's by British Scientists. The hole does enlarge at certain times of the year and shrink at others. However, the hole was shown to be growing overall. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed and adjustments were made in 1990, and 1992. The protocol banned CFC's ("chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform)by a certain date)". Gov't and companies around the world went about replacing CFC gases and products that gave off CFC's with other gases/products. The main culprit is chlorine. The results based upon this aggressive action have shown that the ozone hole has pretty much stabilized, as measured in Dobson units. The graphic shows where CFC's, etc are still being produced.

What is interesting is that Dobson ozone measurements have been taken since the 1960's. Yet, no complete connection was made until the 1980's. So, there is a tremendous body of scientific evidence to show what was going on.

The fact that we don't hear about the ozone hole much anymore is based upon the efforts of the world community to agressively eliminate CFC's from the atmosphere. Did it destroy our economy or way of life to protect the planet? No, not in any measureable amount. I would bet that many more jobs were created in replacement products.

The area where CFC's are still being produced in mass amounts (as shown by satellite imagery) is over central western Africa (Nigeria, etc.).

Had the protocols not been put into place, the ozone hole would be at 10% and growing, instead of the stabilized 5% that it is now. An overwhelming majority of scientific research suggests that their is a strong possibility that the hole will heal itself to just 2% by 2050.

Thanks to whomever for bringing up this side issue, it's been a fascinating/illuminating afternoon.

[PolkThug]

Global warming rocks! Do you guys remember how much damn snow we had to shovel in the late 80's?

[tonyb]

ftp://toms.gsfc.nasa.gov/pub/omi/images/aerosol/FULLDAY_AERO.PNGJust a few facts. The ozone hole was discovered in the early 1980's by British Scientists. The hole does enlarge at certain times of the year and shrink at others. However, the hole was shown to be growing overall. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed and adjustments were made in 1990, and 1992. The protocol banned CFC's ("chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform)by a certain date)". Gov't and companies around the world went about replacing CFC gases and products that gave off CFC's with other gases/products. The main culprit is chlorine. The results based upon this aggressive action have shown that the ozone hole has pretty much stabilized, as measured in Dobson units. The graphic shows where CFC's, etc are still being produced.

What is interesting is that Dobson ozone measurements have been taken since the 1960's. Yet, no complete connection was made until the 1980's. So, there is a tremendous body of scientific evidence to show what was going on.

The fact that we don't hear about the ozone hole much anymore is based upon the efforts of the world community to agressively eliminate CFC's from the atmosphere. Did it destroy our economy or way of life to protect the planet? No, not in any measureable amount. I would bet that many more jobs were created in replacement products.

The area where CFC's are still being produced in mass amounts (as shown by satellite imagery) is over central western Africa (Nigeria, etc.).

Had the protocols not been put into place, the ozone hole would be at 10% and growing, instead of the stabilized 5% that it is now. An overwhelming majority of scientific research suggests that their is a strong possibility that the hole will heal itself to just 2% by 2050.

Thanks to whomever for bringing up this side issue, it's been a fascinating/illuminating afternoon.

So your telling me hair spray could have ended the free world as we know it??
I suppose the billions upon billions of ants in this world were to all fart at the same time,we'd all blow up???Did you go to Berkley by chance??

[tonyb]

Almost forgot about the people in western Africa,you know, the ones
with all those air conditioners and hair spray!!!

[markmarc]

Tony:
I give out a historical outline and scientific facts, and you reply with a personal attack. May I recommend you do some honest research. Matter-of-fact, go to any basic college science lab. You can prove the effects of CFC's on ozone quite easily using a sealed clear tube of colored ozone. Introduce just a small amount of CFC and watch what happens.

As for the Africa comment, Nigeria has a fairly substantial industrial base. Lagos is one of the world's most populated cities. In addition, if you read the CIA website you will find reference to Nigeria's chemical industry (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ni.html). The imagery is quite fascinating, and does lead to some variety in speculation as to other causes. The impressive thing is looking at the world image, how very little aerosol is being released. Hmmm, I wonder why?

Over 150 countries signed on to the Montreal protocol. If you look at the imagery again, it shows the good this treaty has provided.

[unc2701]

Actually, I was doing this thing a few months ago, maybe some of you guys could help me out with it.

So I was approached to do this analysis for a couple MD's who had hospital admission data for a few cities across the US and they were curious whether it correlated with the daily air pollution data. SO2, NO2, CO, PM 2.5, PM 10, O3, the usual suspects. So I check out the data- like you'd expect, it's pretty close to a poisson- a little overdispersion, but nothing that can't be parameterized... So I pull the pollution data off the EPA AQS database server, run it through this cool imputation algorithm for the pollutatants with strong diurnal variation (gotta get around to publishing that), then make a surface for each hospital's catchment area using this krieging process. I did a poisson regression with the exposures from the krieging against those hospital admissions, threw on an autoregressive correlation matrix to take care of the whole repeated measures thing... checked the residuals, everything looked kosher so I checked out the beta hats.

Cardio pulmonary hospital admissions significantly increased on days with higher NO2, SO2 and PM 2.5. [Edit:O3, too! forgot about that...] For SO2, there were 1.5 times as many admissions for each IRQ increase.

So, you guys seem to know a lot about this stuff, maybe you could suggest some changes? I was thinking maybe a negative binomial might work better.

[MrNightly]

Club Polk Scientists Rule!!

Hell, I've learned a lot by reading this thread!! Keep it coming boys... now I've gotta just figure out who is right. :D

[faster100]

Its amazing what google can come up with :D

[jdhdiggs]

Actually, I was doing this thing a few months ago, maybe some of you guys could help me out with it.

So I was approached to do this analysis for a couple MD's who had hospital admission data for a few cities across the US and they were curious whether it correlated with the daily air pollution data. SO2, NO2, CO, PM 2.5, PM 10, O3, the usual suspects. So I check out the data- like you'd expect, it's pretty close to a poisson- a little overdispersion, but nothing that can't be parameterized... So I pull the pollution data off the EPA AQS database server, run it through this cool imputation algorithm for the pollutatants with strong diurnal variation (gotta get around to publishing that), then make a surface for each hospital's catchment area using this krieging process. I did a poisson regression with the exposures from the krieging against those hospital admissions, threw on an autoregressive correlation matrix to take care of the whole repeated measures thing... checked the residuals, everything looked kosher so I checked out the beta hats.

Cardio pulmonary hospital admissions significantly increased on days with higher NO2, SO2 and PM 2.5. [Edit:O3, too! forgot about that...] For SO2, there were 1.5 times as many admissions for each IRQ increase.

So, you guys seem to know a lot about this stuff, maybe you could suggest some changes? I was thinking maybe a negative binomial might work better.

Watch out, you might just fall off that high horse!!!

Your a mathematician working for a company and getting paid to find correllations in the data. I've worked enough with statistic modeling to know that you will find correlations between anything as long as you choicely pick and choose your factors. The only weakness is the relative strenght of the correlations. Just from this post alone shows that you are trying to find anything to corrleate (positive bias).

If tomorrow you were getting paid to find holes in the same studies you are doing, you would be able to do that as well. I'm sure you know enough that if you added more random variables, say sun intensity, relative humidity, saturated fat the person had in the morning, phase of the moon, and so on....you could find something else that could be correlated if you had a negative bias.

BTW, I think I will believe the person with a geophysics and environmental engineering degrees working as an environmental consultant over a statistician with and axe to grind. And, what the hell does your discussion have to due with global warming?

[PolkThug]

Watch out, you might just fall off that high horse!!!

Your a mathematician working for a company and getting paid to find correllations in the data. I've worked enough with statistic modeling to know that you will find correlations between anything as long as you choicely pick and choose your factors. The only weakness is the relative strenght of the correlations. Just from this post alone shows that you are trying to find anything to corrleate (positive bias).

If tomorrow you were getting paid to find holes in the same studies you are doing, you would be able to do that as well. I'm sure you know enough that if you added more random variables, say sun intensity, relative humidity, saturated fat the person had in the morning, phase of the moon, and so on....you could find something else that could be correlated if you had a negative bias.

BTW, I think I will believe the person with a geophysics and environmental engineering degrees working as an environmental consultant over a statistician with and axe to grind. And, what the hell does your discussion have to due with global warming?

pot kettle black :)

[jdhdiggs]

Yeah, eat me! :) At least I mentioned global warming...

UNC: I would run the data set against a (d) + (d-1) data set. By offsetting the days and allowing two days exposure affect to the analysis I would guess you could tighten correlation a bit. Of course you'd need to check t-stats and the like.

[ND13]

Nerds!!!;) :p

[ohskigod]

my god, if we were in high school, I would so be beating the Sh*t out of you people for lunch money right now :D

[Strong Bad]

I really wish I would get abducted by an Alien race. You guys have made me so depressed about living on Earth!

I'm going to DJ tonight, watch hot naked strippers and have a nice cool brew. That should ease the pain somewhat about my status on this doomed planet.


John

[Strong Bad]

my god, if we were in high school, I would so be beating the Sh*t out of you people for lunch money right now :D

Effin hilarious!!! :D

[bikezappa]

john d. strong

I wish lived near you, because I'd love to go with you and have a cold one and throw dollars at naked women.

As F Zappa said, "Tities and Beer"

[ND13]

I really wish I would get abducted by an Alien race. You guys have made me so depressed about living on Earth!

I'm going to DJ tonight, watch hot naked strippers and have a nice cool brew. That should ease the pain somewhat about my status on this doomed planet.


John


If that happened you might have to DJ for some Klingon type women:eek:

[bikezappa]

Another true story.

On BBC News in London last week a computor technicain named Guy Goma was waiting for a job interview when a producer mistook him for an "expert" guest scheduled to go on the air. Confused, the Congolese immigrant was led before BBC Cameras to comment, live, on a legal dispute between Apple Computer and Apple Corps record label. The interviewer not only did not realize he had the wrong talking head; he nodded eagerly and thanked Goma for his keen observations. Goma's performance has proved what we all suspected: Virtually anyone can dispense the conventional wisdom and vapid truisms that pass TV analysis and opinion. In fact, as the usual roster of pundits proves every day, " the less you know, the more forceful you can be."


Lesson: don't listen to Rush's wisdom on anything.

[unc2701]

Your a mathematician working for a company and getting paid to find correllations in the data. I've worked enough with statistic modeling to know that you will find correlations between anything as long as you choicely pick and choose your factors. The only weakness is the relative strenght of the correlations. Just from this post alone shows that you are trying to find anything to corrleate (positive bias).

Actually, I work for a pizza delivery place, but it's just a front for a shadow liberal group/ coke ring. I get $30,000 for every correlation I find. The first guy to find 10 correlations in a calandar year gets a blowjob from a vegas stripper... last year I came in second, so I only got a handjob from a tranny. BTW- the word you're looking for in Bonferroni, and yeah, we took care of that. In this case Bonferroni would slightly bias us to find nothing, not what we did. Oh and we weren't thowing just anything in there- it was 6 pollutants and four worked. lets see you do some binomial shit with that.


If tomorrow you were getting paid to find holes in the same studies you are doing, you would be able to do that as well. I'm sure you know enough that if you added more random variables, say sun intensity, relative humidity, saturated fat the person had in the morning, phase of the moon, and so on....you could find something else that could be correlated if you had a negative bias.

I do get paid to take these things down. Since Fox news looses its shit everytime something like this comes out, we're inthe habit of trying to break these things every way we can. Sometimes it breaks and we gotta rethink what we're doing. In this case I threw everything I had at it and it still worked...

And, what the hell does your discussion have to due with global warming?

ahhhh, tiny grasshopper, your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. You must feeeeeeeel the post before you reach enlightenment. Or read bikezappa's last post.

I would run the data set against a (d) + (d-1) data set. By offsetting the days and allowing two days exposure affect to the analysis I would guess you could tighten correlation a bit. Of course you'd need to check t-stats and the like.

Dude, you're a smart guy. I'm not being sarcasitic here, I can tell from your posts- so think about it. Clearly I'm not looking actually for help on my last post. What you wrote is giberish to most the people here, and clearly you're not gonna impress me... especially with that. But to answer your question, we did polynomial distributed lags and unrestricted lags up to 7 days. Which would span that two day mean. Oh and we checked the t-stats, f-stats, wald stats, score stats, residual stats, tea leaves and I even asked the tranny, but s/he just mumbled something about needing bigger hands.

oh and one lsast thing- you should really stop questioning my ethical integrity as a statistician. Makes you come off as a total asshat, and it's hard to leave that behind when we're talking about the fun stuff- audio and such.



mmmm... now for the titties and beer.

[ND13]

cowbell:o

[faster100]

ego's and brains at full tilt... :)

[petrym]

More commonly called cranial/rectal inversion...

[unc2701]

I've got a fever... and the only cure...


is more cowbell

[Ron-P]

http://www.ableza.org/pants.jpg

[mrbigbluelight]

If you run that same data through a LaPlace Transform, thereby reversing the view, you will see that the width of the skid marks on those drawers decreases at a constant rate. This proves that the earth is actually cooling down.







P.S. That was an awesome pic. :D

...and don't forget: I'm the guy who figured out Fermat's Enigma.

[aaharvel]

I believe global warming exists.

I also believe that man's ability to determine how bad the phenomena is or isn't have been overly exaggerated.

There's ignorance on both sides.

[MacLeod]

I believe global warming exists.

I also believe that man's ability to determine how bad the phenomena is or isn't have been overly exaggerated.

There's ignorance on both sides.

I agree with this. Its obviously getting warmer here but this global climate is not static and since its 4 billion years old, a 20 year warming period is barely a tick on the global clock and far from being a "trend".

[HBombToo]

I wonder what Sig "The deadliest catch" would have to say about all this? Probably those guys would welcome global warming...:D

HBomb

[jdhdiggs]

Crap, I forgot about this thread over the weekend... Oh well, too bad I actually have to work this week. FAK!

[ClemmonsHoo]

I look at it this way. We can call it all junk science and do nothing, and if we're wrong, we all die. Or, we can make minor insignificant sacrifices by putting need ahead of want, and if we're right, at least we have a fighting chance.

[George Grand]

It shouldn't hurt too much to err on the safe side.

[Demiurge]

I wonder what Sig "The deadliest catch" would have to say about all this? Probably those guys would welcome global warming...:D

HBomb

Hah, I loved that show. We got the 1st season on DVD. Just nuts....

[MacLeod]

It shouldn't hurt too much to err on the safe side.

I definitely agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with conserving where we can, recylce what we can, look for new and more effecient sources of energy, try to make cars more fuel effecient and so on. These are all very wise things to do even if we had definitive scientific proof global warming did NOT exist.

What we shouldnt do however is cripple our industry and the global economy to the extent they cant function over an absurd assumption that has no scientific evidence to support.

[bobman1235]

Well, there are some benefits (http://www.maximonline.com/articles/index.aspx?a_id=7222&src=gm86) to Global Warming :D :

Global warming has been getting a bad rap lately. But what's so terrible about having more oceans, no winters, and year-round sun tans? Before you write off the coming climate change, check out our 25 reasons why there's nothing like a nice warm globe.

1. Minnesota can change its license plate slogan from "Shit hole" to "The State with Two Coasts."

2. Kansas will finally get what it deserves: a hurricane.

3. Saying "I hate winter" will be like saying "I hate Father's Day", cause it only lasts 24 hours.

4. No more penguins.

5. The hotter it is, the colder beer'll taste.

6. "Sunny Alaska" will replace "Burny Florida" as the new winter vacation destination.

7. It will take a lot less time to boil water.

8. You'll finally get some use out of that ark you got for Christmas.

9. Hot Tubs will be replaced with Ice Tubs—which will mean lots and lots of hard nips.

10. Everyone will be so tan that we'll all look like Arabs. And then there won't be any more racism.

11. One word: Waterworld.

12. Another great excuse to hang out in your underwear 24/7/365.

13. Mexicans will start heading south instead of north.

14. You'll be able have engine block eggs without starting your engine.

15. The Olympic torch will never go out.

16. Due to the lack of ice, hockey will finally become the the sport it was meant to be: a bunch of guys hitting each other with sticks under water.

17. There's no forest fires in the ocean.

18. The phrase "hot as hell" will no longer be hyperbole.

19. You'll be able to roast your nuts without an open fire.

20. Since they're called the "Boys of Summer", baseball will be played year round.

21. You'll be able to really put your Degree deodorant to the test, just like in the commercial.

22. It'll be as hot as the south everywhere, so naturally, everyone will become as funny as Jeff Foxworthy and Larry The Cable guy. We'll laugh ourselves into world peace.

23. You'll be able to give hot rock massages to ladies you just met in the park.

24. If the entire world floods and we're forced to live underwater, maybe we'll meet Poseidon.

25. We'll all figure out there's nothing beneficial about global warming.

[jdhdiggs]

More reading:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21847
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612

[MacLeod]

1. Minnesota can change its license plate slogan from "Shit hole" to "The State with Two Coasts."

2. Kansas will finally get what it deserves: a hurricane.


4. No more penguins.


6. "Sunny Alaska" will replace "Burny Florida" as the new winter vacation destination.


8. You'll finally get some use out of that ark you got for Christmas.

9. Hot Tubs will be replaced with Ice Tubs—which will mean lots and lots of hard nips.

And the best one of all!


13. Mexicans will start heading south instead of north.

Those are brilliant!! LMAO!!

[MacLeod]

More reading:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21847
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612


Excellent reading! Thanks JD.

[aaharvel]

More reading:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/20/134405.shtml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2004/07/19/ecnsun18.xml
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21847
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37612

the first 2 and second worldnetdaily made for good reading. Thanks.
While I'm with Gore on most issues, his position on global warming theories remind me of an overcooked ham.

[jdhdiggs]

Well, I thought with the CNN coverage of "The world the hottest in 2,000 years" articles going all over the net, some balance might be appreciated.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/3994604.html
http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html

Stolen from boortz.com since I'm lazy

[MacLeod]

OK. Its hotter now than at any time in 400 years. So what made it so hot 401 years ago? Were there SUV's back then?

There was a meteorologist on the radio today that was discounting the global warming hysteria (which most scientists do) and said something interesting that Id heard before but not in this detail.

He said that the combined signle eruption of Mt Penetuba and Mt St Helens spewed out more greenhouse gasses than in all of human history combined!! He added that Mt Vesuvious did more than that when it blew!

He pointed out that there have been massive volcanoes erupting like this for BILLIONS of years with most spewing out more greenhouse gasses in one shot than we have in history and yet the earth's climate is ok. So how can billions of eruptions over billions of years not screw up the climate but 40 years of SUV's can? :confused:

[disneyjoe7]

Hey, feel the same way if 400 years ago it was the same high temperature average. WTF why argue about industrial age, cars, cows farts, what ever are causing this.... What we had industry 400 years ago. It's a poor argument if you ask me.

[Skynut]

Interesting or not?

The Associated Press
The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the USA.
The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8°F, or 3.4°F above average for the 20th century.

That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895, the National Climatic Data Center reported.

No state was cooler than average and five states — Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, and Missouri — experienced record warmth for the period.

While much of the Northeast experienced extreme rainfall and flooding at the end of June, many other areas continued below normal precipitation.

As of June, 45% of the contiguous U.S. was in moderate-to-extreme drought, an increase of 6% from May.

Dry conditions spawned more than 50,000 wildfires, burning more than 3 million acres in the continental USA, according to the National Interagency Fire Center.

Worldwide, it was the sixth-warmest year-to-date since record keeping began in 1880.

[jdhdiggs]

Not...

[MacLeod]

That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895

And if the Earth were only 111 years old, then this would actually prove something. But, since its over 4,000,000,000 that statement along with $.50 will buy you a Coke.

[ND13]

Ummmmm.....didn't we throw the cowbell out on this thread like...what?...two weeks ago??:D

[Demiurge]

We were missing the rest of the band!

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/duncanblack/cowbellani.gif

[MacLeod]

Ummmmm.....didn't we throw the cowbell out on this thread like...what?...two weeks ago??:D


Im sorry, I just cant help myself. My big mouth has a mind of its own sometimes. :o

[SKsolutions]

At this time, man can't influence any aspect of atmosphere or weather. So, all the comments about "doing something" are inane. If there is some invisible threshold that has been passed, we are, simply, fcuked.

I don't subscribe to the hysteria. When compared to evolution of the earth itself, our footprint is small and shallow..

The only reason it has been so widely reported is that it takes the focus off the fact that you won't be able to retire, buy a home, receive health care, vote for a qualified candidate, educate your children, or know where the real threat is coming from. Never underestimate the power of brokering fear.

[Frank Z]

We're all gonna DIE!!! :eek:

Sorry, just wanted to be part of the IN crowd. Gotta go vent some CFC's, it's getting chilly around here....only eleventeen brazillion degrees today.

Frank Z.
Somewhere on Mercury

[PolkThug]

Tomorrow I will be burning premium fuel at a rate of about 9mpg and atomizing rubber into the atmosphere. Good times!

[HBombToo]

Thank God for the man Cave on days like this!!! Wow its hot.

HBomb

[MacLeod]

Just got back from a competition in Alabama. It was 95 at noon and 97 by 3. I know thats nothing compared to Arizona temps and the like but with high humidity, it was brutal.

Hell, its still 93 right now in Chattanooga at 8:30 PM!

I HATE SUMMER!

[PhantomOG]

Gore hypocrisy (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060810/cm_usatoday/goreisntquiteasgreenashesledtheworldtobelieve)

[bobman1235]

Yeha, I particularly love when all these folks railing about burning less fossil fuels fly around on private jets. The fuel it takes for one private jet to bring three people accross the country could probably fuel my pickup for a year (I have no idea what hte numbers really are, but private jets cost per mile per person is RIDICULOUSLY high, fuel-wise).

[aaharvel]

THat's an opinion Opera Ghost. A pitiful op-ed piece. So Gore owns three properties and has a 4,000 sq house? Big deal. Look at what Bill Gates owns, and he gives back more than anyone on earth. If you want to discredit the man, that's a desperate and sorry way to go about it.

(Btw, I don't agree with Gore's standpoint on global warming)

[PhantomOG]

Does Bill Gates preach to people to cut down on their consumption?

Telling people to do one thing and doing the exact opposite is the definition of hypocrisy.

[aaharvel]

Does Bill Gates preach to people to cut down on their consumption?

Telling people to do one thing and doing the exact opposite is the definition of hypocrisy.

and how many people in Washington (or anywhere else for that matter) would you care to line up alongside Mr. Gore.

What would you have them do? Move into a duplex to PROVE to people like you that he cares about the environment?

Give me a break..

[PhantomOG]

Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

Whatever... your idea for sincerity and mine obviously differ. You think his message and lifestyle don't conflict, I do.

[bobman1235]

and how many people in Washington (or anywhere else for that matter) would you care to line up alongside Mr. Gore.

What would you have them do? Move into a duplex to PROVE to people like you that he cares about the environment?

Give me a break..

No one's saying he's the only one. But he's set HIMSELF up as the poster-boy for eco-moderation, and is not living as he preaches. He's a rich man, I think he has earned the right to live in a giant estate, but why not go with the readily available renewable resources to power his homes? He has enough money to install some solar panels or do any n umber of things that he doesn't do. And I guarantee all his speaking tours involve him taking a private jet day after day, which is the epitome of wastefulness.

Just because the world is full of hypocrites doesn't mean we can't single one out once in a while. It doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite just because there's others like you.

[unc2701]

Pat buchannan on the other hand, has come over to the global warming side:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676947/posts

What would Jesus Drive?

[Demiurge]

Pat buchannan on the other hand, has come over to the global warming side:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1676947/posts

What would Jesus Drive?

You mean Pat Robertson?

Isn't it well documented he's a lunatic?

He's the smartest man in the room when he's talking about Global Warming, and the media will report that.

He's the dumbest shit in the toilet when he's talking about morality, and they'll laugh at him.

[aaharvel]

lol ol' Pat. Doesn't he have Parkinsons or something? I know he shakes really bad.

[unc2701]

You mean Pat Robertson?

Isn't it well documented he's a lunatic?

He's the smartest man in the room when he's talking about Global Warming, and the media will report that.

He's the dumbest shit in the toilet when he's talking about morality, and they'll laugh at him.


oops... my bad, had a brain fart there. Anyhow, it does bring up and interesting topic: what would Jesus Drive?


Or satan, for that matter. I think satan is easier: I'm going with a 1965 lincoln continental.

[PolkThug]

Global warming sucks, I can't get full boost in this heat.

[bobman1235]

Anyhow, it does bring up and interesting topic: what would Jesus Drive?

Jesus was a poor carpenter. He'd drive an old pickup that got about 8 miles to the gallon.

[jdhdiggs]

oops... my bad, had a brain fart there. Anyhow, it does bring up and interesting topic: what would Jesus Drive?


Or satan, for that matter. I think satan is easier: I'm going with a 1965 lincoln continental.

Well, Jesus would walk beside a donkey most likely. Of course if he comes around again, he'll be on a stallion.

[Demiurge]

Well, Jesus would walk beside a donkey most likely. Of course if he comes around again, he'll be on a stallion.

Yeah, and if the rapture ever happens they'll all be dead, so it's a moot point anyhow. ;)

[PolkThug]

Holy carp!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924286/

SAN FRANCISCO - California filed suit against the world's largest carmakers on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.

[bobman1235]

I really wish the big one would hit and that god-forsaken state would fall into the ocean l ike they've been promising for years.

[BIZILL]

ARIZONA deserves beaches more than those Cali bitches.

[jdhdiggs]

Holy carp!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14924286/

SAN FRANCISCO - California filed suit against the world's largest carmakers on Wednesday, charging that greenhouse gases from their vehicles have cost the state millions of dollars.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer said the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Northern California was the first of its kind to seek to hold manufacturers liable for the damages caused by their vehicles' emissions.

Eh, why not sue the drivers who bought them and drove them. Those poor innocent cars didn't do anything on there own...

That whole lawsuit is BS. I'll be watching how the unions handle this suit as if it wins, they'll be losing their jobs.

[ND13]

What a freakin joke. He should be sued for wasting tax-payers money by bringing an unwinnable case to court and tying it up even further than it already is. Just like the article states, he's up for election in November and is trying to grab some fringe votes from the tree-huggers.

[MacLeod]

Just more evidence that the world would be a much better place if the Soviet Socialists Republic of Kalifornia would just break off and sink into the ocean.

Im sure the suit will find plenty of kook judges there to uphold it but as soon as it gets to a court outside that stupid state, itll be thrown out.

Talk about a waste of tax payer money!

[exalted512]

Who wants to bet he drives a car?
-Cody

[aaharvel]

pretty damn stupid lawsuit imo. Not worth the time of an Appellate court.

[unc2701]

Yeah, it's pretty lame. 'course i wouldn't be surprised to find out that CA requires a certain percentage of the cars sold to be over a certain MPG rating, which I guess would make the lawsuit have a chance...


...nope, just read the article. Election year bullshit.

[jdhdiggs]

Wow, something everyone agrees with...

THE END IS NEAR!!!

[MacLeod]

Bush rules!!! I wish he could run for a 3rd term!!!








(that should get things back on track :D )

[Skynut]

ARIZONA deserves beaches more than those Cali bitches.


No friggen way, when Cali does fall only the far west will actually fall.
It will form an island that will become a highly sought after piece of real estate.
Then the ocean will be lapping up to my driveway and I will have beach front property.
There is no way we will let arizona get our ocean. :eek: :D
Also keep in mind that we have the fifth largets economy in the world so when we go we will take the economy with us.