# A Little Ice Age Coming?



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

Looks like a drop in solar output is projected starting in 2030. Oh well, nothing is quite as simple as expected. The question is whether the Maunder Effect will make green house gasses a good thing or a bad thing.

I see a conference with astrophysicists and climatologists very soon. Sponsored by the solar power industry......


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

You are going to be pounded by the Global Warming/climate change crowd. Duck!!! No, Hide!!!!!!!


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

If we could just control the sun, jet stream, and ocean currents, climate change wouldn't be happening. No valid scientist claims to completely understand how these things, and others, interact to affect our weather on a global scale. A Nobel Prize winner like Obama may know, but he ain't tellin'.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

They were predicting an Ice Age for the 70's too


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Man is contributing to climate change. This is natural occurance.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Climate change happens. The dinosaurs had a tremendous electro-magnetic field around each animal. At one point there were so many of them concentrated on the lush grasses of the Yucatan peninsula that their combined magnetic fields intercepted an iron meteorite passing by, disrupted its course and caused it to crash nearby. Ruined their eon. Sun didn't shine for several years.

Coal and cow flatulence (according to a Nobel-prize-Winner and some here) are going to do the same for us. I wish they could make up their minds as to whether we need sun tan oil or bear skins.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.insidescience.org/conten...snt-make-todays-climate-scientists-wrong/1640

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-intermediate.htm

A discussion of the reasons for the predictions of global cooling in the 1970s. All those aerosol underarm deoderants.... facetiously meant of course. 
Of course, the scientist who predicted cooling has recanted his theory. If the current model is right, then he may have to recant his latest recant........

If people can't see the humor in this, there we were doomed from a decidedly deadly lack of humor anyway. Which I think is the most likely end of the world scenario- we don't go out with a bang nor a whimper but in an excess of self righteousness.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Oxankle said:


> Climate change happens. The dinosaurs had a tremendous electro-magnetic field around each animal. At one point there were so many of them concentrated on the lush grasses of the Yucatan peninsula that their combined magnetic fields intercepted an iron meteorite passing by, disrupted its course and caused it to crash nearby. Ruined their eon. Sun didn't shine for several years.
> 
> Coal and cow flatulence (according to a Nobel-prize-Winner and some here) are going to do the same for us. I wish they could make up their minds as to whether we need sun tan oil or bear skins.


The issues with CO emissions, is that since the effects are not felt immediately, it's not problems at all, in some minds. 

Coal power plants are the worst CO emitters of any any electrical power generation source.

A big problems is people tend to generalize the issues.

It's not just about "cow farts" A large amount of CO is produced, "producing" the corn, soybeans, hay to feed what is a very inefficient source of protein. Then there the feedlot manure runoff, illegal Mexicans in the slaughterhouse, etc.

The problems and the solutions are not simple.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> The issues with CO emissions, is that since the effects are not felt immediately, it's not problems at all, in some minds.
> 
> Coal power plants are the worst CO emitters of any any electrical power generation source.
> 
> ...


True mostly, except live stock is a way that humans used to make use of marginal lands with minimal effort. And some still do. Not to mention all those vegetarians using animal manure to grow their meatless dinners. 
And meat provides an overwintering source of food. Because the only thing that makes meat less valuable now is the constant transport of plant material from winter growing places to places where winter is too harsh to grow. Which, of course, increases greenhouse gasses. 
A basic problem is too many people need to be fed, especially too many people who don't know how to feed themselves. 
The day will come when there will be cries of climate change caused by too many solar panels shading the earth, causing heat to be generated and radiated into the atmosphere immediately rather than allowing the earth to absorb radiation to be released slowly and extending the growing seasons.
Basically everything we do effects the earth in small increments. Many small increments create change. And we will always be scrambling to adjust.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

If you take the total biomass of human we are a very small fraction compared to the total biomass of insects. I therefore propose that insects cause global warming. Therefore I will start a cockroach breeding program to counter the forthcoming ice age. Soon my volunteers will be placing egg cases around your home.

You can thank me later.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> If you take the total biomass of human we are a very small fraction compared to the total biomass of insects. I therefore propose that insects cause global warming. Therefore I will start a cockroach breeding program to counter the forthcoming ice age. Soon my volunteers will be placing egg cases around your home.
> 
> You can thank me later.


Thanks for the heads up. When I get home I'll turn out all the chickens, turkeys, and guineas.....


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

That would be counter productive. We now need a chicken, turkey and guinea tax.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

I'm now working on a cowtaletic converter for my whole herd of 30 cows.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I've got one of those!


My wife makes me wear it.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

We are haveing a cool summer, I sure like it.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

This story about the sun not putting out enough energy is a lie. The church of the global warming says it is just a conspiracy being propagated by deniers. The earth is heating by tiny amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere and we are all going to burn up. This solar minimum excuse is so the deniers claim they don't need to stop adding CO2 to the air. Deniers will even claim they are trying to save the earth. Heretics! 

Personally, I think that some men have a tremendous ego. Thinking man can change not only the earth but the sun too. What we know of history is the climate always changes, oscillating between warm and cold temperatures, CO2 oscillating between high and low concentrations. The sun oscillating between minimums and maximums, it is all natural. What little man adds or subtracts is insignificant in the over all major scheme of things. 










The interesting thing with this chart is that CO2, the great evil of climate change, doesn't seem to track temperatures accurately at all. We don't know what solar output may have been but a gut feeling is that would have far more impact. Lastly, I don't know if we are going into a little ice age or not, I don't think scientists have all knowledge when it comes to nature.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

plowjockey said:


> Man is contributing to climate change. This is natural occurance.


"Man" is a natural occurence too

The OP is about a "projection" (guess) by scientists



> Looks like a drop in solar output is projected starting in 2030.


I don't have a lot of faith in their "projections" beyond a 5 day weather forecast


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

All of science is nothing more then a guess.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> All of science is nothing more then a guess.


Not at all, but predicting the future in this case certainly is


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not at all, but predicting the future in this case certainly is


It a model in the same exact sense that people talk about the modeling used to predict global warming. Only this one seems not to have needed so many fixes when data didn't match the modeled predictions. In fact, pending ongoing peer review, unlike gobal warming models, it has been "remarkably accurate."

For everyone but the faithful, the gobal warming models have had some real failures. But as long as you're sure.......


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not at all, but predicting the future in this case certainly is


No seriously it is. It is a thought that has been expressed to me by several scientists. It allows them to keep an open mind.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

BlackFeather said:


> Personally, I think that some men have a tremendous ego. Thinking man can change not only the earth but the sun too. What we know of history is the climate always changes, oscillating between warm and cold temperatures, CO2 oscillating between high and low concentrations. The sun oscillating between minimums and maximums, it is all natural. What little man adds or subtracts is insignificant in the over all major scheme of things.


Not ego (well, not directly), BF. It's greed, pure & simple. 

Apparently this current group of elitists thinks that we're too stupid to see through this scheme. I can't imagine where they would have gotten that notion (makes ya wonder what other government programs were/are based on lies/schemes). I mean, people honestly couldn't tell that Al Gore is insane??


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> Not ego (well, not directly), BF. It's greed, pure & simple.
> 
> Apparently this current group of elitists thinks that we're too stupid to see through this scheme. I can't imagine where they would have gotten that notion (makes ya wonder what other government programs were/are based on lies/schemes). I mean, people honestly couldn't tell that Al Gore is insane??


 'ALGORE' has nothing to do with the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will most likely lead to higher temperatures. What is so 'elitist' about that fact? I think i know... If ALGORE says it, since he's a rich guy, its got to be BS, right? I mean, someone can't really talk about CO2 emissions if they drive a car, have a mansion, and use private jets, now can they? How very 'elitist' of him.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Man is contributing to climate change. This is natural occurance.


 Yes, nature doesn't care if CO2 goes up because carbon-rich sediments get subducted and belched out as high-CO2 volcanic gasses, or if 4 billiion people drive their cars every day. The result to the atmospheric chemistry is the same.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

But another thought might be that aren't we fortunate to have greenhouse gas if the sun is actually going to cycle through a period of diminished ration. Or not.
But it would certainly be another opportunity to learn wisdom about our own limitations in understanding.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> 'ALGORE' has nothing to do with the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increasing its concentration in the atmosphere will most likely lead to higher temperatures. What is so 'elitist' about that fact? I think i know... *If ALGORE says it, since he's a rich guy, its got to be BS, right? I mean, someone can't really talk about CO2 emissions if they drive a car, have a mansion, and use private jets, now can they? How very 'elitist' of him.*


Well, yeah......that and the 'scientists' getting caught manipulating the data to fit the government's agenda/propaganda.

But it does make Gore and those like him look like deceptive hypocrites (or insane ) when they're blasting out as much CO2 as 50 families while pointing fingers at the peons. Peons tend to resent that type of behavior.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> Well, yeah......that and the 'scientists' getting caught manipulating the data to fit the government's agenda/propaganda.
> 
> But it does make Gore and those like him look like deceptive hypocrites (or insane ) when they're blasting out as much CO2 as 50 families while pointing fingers at the peons. Peons tend to resent that type of behavior.


 Ah yeah, the old 'East Anglia Email' controversy, that really wasn't. Look into a little more, past the headlines, and tell us what you find out. 



> A number of independent investigations from different countries, universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth of empirical evidence for man-made global warming.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

And hatred of ALGORE has nothing to do with whether increasing concentrations of CO2 will raise temperatures on a global scale.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Ah yeah, the old 'East Anglia Email' controversy, that really wasn't. Look into a little more, past the headlines, and tell us what you find out.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The East Anglia emails were just the beginning. There has been more controversial/questionable data since then, which is why there are more skeptics today.

And I don't hate Algore. I just think he's nutty as a fruitcake. All-consuming greed (and a major God complex) can do that to a person.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh sure there has every time some new data comes in that the gw folks don't like they CHANGE their own data to make it LOOK worse again to make the people that are on grant happy so they can continue to get that free gov. money. But their religion is being shot all full of holes so they always have to come up with some more bs and get it on all the social networks again to satisfy there hunger for power and control.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Just for fun.... What if the doom and bloomers are correct, what difference will it make if mankind manages to destroy his environment and he becomes extinct? :shrug:


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Just for fun.... What if the doom and bloomers are correct, what difference will it make if mankind manages to destroy his environment and he becomes extinct? :shrug:


It's going to happen sometime, so it hardly matters when


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's going to happen sometime, so it hardly matters when


It might ruin a lot of those revelation based end of the world prophesies if we do it before god does. Or maybe fulfill them.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Anyone read the original article? The scientists say they have advanced the knowledge of the changes in the Sun. Their model is supposedly 97% accurate.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...w-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> Anyone read the original article? The scientists say they have advanced the knowledge of the changes in the Sun. Their model is supposedly 97% accurate.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...w-model-of-the-suns-cycle-shows-10382400.html


I did of course. Realizing that more evaluation will be done to check for errors. 
The ramifications are interesting if it pans out, both for preparing and socially. 15 years into the future is not far away.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

mmoetc said:


> It might ruin a lot of those revelation based end of the world prophesies if we do it before god does. Or maybe fulfill them.


Or even worse for the people whose surety is absolute- what if society is "saved" by having global warming to counteract the drop in solar radiation? If that is the way the equations crumble.....


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Colder won't be good. Based on what happened to Europe during the last little ice age, the potential for crop failures is very real.


----------



## ninny (Dec 12, 2005)

Better hope the climate keeps changing because when it stops we're in big trouble.

.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> Colder won't be good. Based on what happened to Europe during the last little ice age, the potential for crop failures is very real.


But we have greenhouse gas now....... what if it turns out they are enough to be protective? I know- sheer speculation......


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> It might ruin a lot of those revelation based end of the world prophesies if we do it before god does. Or maybe fulfill them.


Those who believe the Bible will believe that was God's plan, no matter how the "end" occurs.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

where I want to said:


> But we have greenhouse gas now....... what if it turns out they are enough to be protective? I know- sheer speculation......


They couldn't possibly make up for a 60% decrease in solar output when they have barely raised temperatures 2 degrees in the last 100 years


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They couldn't possibly make up for a 60% decrease in solar output when they have barely raised temperatures 2 degrees in the last 100 years


 The article mentioned a 60% decrease in 'solar ACTIVITY', ie sunspots and flares, not a 60% decrease in solar OUTPUT.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/

According to this, the Maunder Minimum shows a potential drop in temperature of less than a 1/3 of a degree C while global warming models are predicting a 3 degree increase. 
Although I do find it questionable that a mere 1/3 degree C drop would have had the purported historically recorded effects of the last cycle. 
Oh well- game still on.......


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

where I want to said:


> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/06/what-if-the-sun-went-into-a-new-grand-minimum/
> 
> According to this, the Maunder Minimum shows a potential drop in temperature of less than a 1/3 of a degree C while global warming models are predicting a 3 degree increase.
> Although I do find it questionable that a mere 1/3 degree C drop would have had the purported historically recorded effects of the last cycle.
> Oh well- game still on.......


Maybe, if they ever get the models to work.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

greg273 said:


> The article mentioned a 60% decrease in 'solar ACTIVITY', ie sunspots and flares, not a 60% decrease in solar OUTPUT.


Yes, you're correct. I used the wrong term

It's still a guess based on a new model, so I don't put much faith in it's accuracy just yet.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

OK, I've been mulling this issue over some more. My call is that the cited paper makes a valid point and has a good model, but as mentioned also what's involved is mostly sunspot activity, not radiant heat output. The Maunder Minimum took place sort of during a wide span of time called "the little ice age", centuries, during which global temperatures dropped and crops were affected with winters cooler, glaciers expanding, etc, true. However, several massive volcanoes went off also, ejecting huge amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere, reflecting radiation away. A lot of the "ice age" measurements seem to have taken place around those periods, not right at the solar activity minimum. Wikipedia also comments some of this span was during the plague years when human population, and therefore early CO2 generation plus forest harvesting, was significantly reduced.

What I've personally come down to as what to watch for over the next few years to decade or so isn't so much CO2 levels and 1/10 degree average surface annual up-ticks and summertime arctic ice reductions. I'm figuring the threat, and a very real one, is of these *apparently* slight warming trends *already* being enough to be causing a real flushing out of methane hydrate deposits both in permafrost and continental shelf areas under upwards of a few hundred feet of arctic seawater. IF the present arctic ice thinning quickly becomes nearly an iceless arctic during several summer months and is measurably slower to freeze back over in the deep winter, the sea water up there *will* warm another degree or two pretty quickly and methane fizz releases could become a classic snowballing positive feedback loop, with its own greenhouse effect (100X or so more intense than that of CO2 weight-for-weight) taking over from CO2 as the direct cause of more and more methane release in that region.

The really alarmist extrapolations (like from McPherson) are that such a feedback runaway could increase temperatures 10C globally within a couple of decades, numbers that were last seen before mammals evolved at all, during the Permian extinction, when some 90% of all species of that time went belly-up. 

Here are a few links to sites that are following this issue:
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/p/global-extinction-within-one-human.html
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2ckkxEnWpA[/ame]
http://guymcpherson.com/
http://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2014/08/horrific-methane-eruptions-in-east-siberian-sea.html


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Let's see; a ten degree rise would put us at 108 today under heavy cloud cover and intense rain. 

Since methane would be plentiful I'd say we run our A/C on natural gas and build some giant igloos in which to spend the hottest part of the day. 

Vegetation will be naturally lush--we will dine on tropical fruit--bananas instead of potatoes. Avocado should thrive; the oceans will be full of fish, ice-machines will be in vogue. Mylar clothing, anyone?

On the other hand, if sunspot activity does slow down (sunspot activity corresponds with solar output) we could get chilled. 

See this: "The _Sun's output_ of energy is known to change over an 11-year _cycle_, and ... form of long wave _radiation corresponding_ to the mean temperature of the Earth..." And "Cold ocean conditions were found to match periods of low _solar_ energy _output_, _corresponding_ to intervals of low _sunspot activity_ observed on the surface of the _sun_."

The jury is still out. Our scientific knowledge on the subject is incomplete.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

DryHeat said:


> OK, I've been mulling this issue over some more. My call is that the cited paper makes a valid point and has a good model, but as mentioned also what's involved is mostly sunspot activity, not radiant heat output. The Maunder Minimum took place sort of during a wide span of time called "the little ice age", centuries, during which global temperatures dropped and crops were affected with winters cooler, glaciers expanding, etc, true. However, several massive volcanoes went off also, ejecting huge amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere, reflecting radiation away. A lot of the "ice age" measurements seem to have taken place around those periods, not right at the solar activity minimum. Wikipedia also comments some of this span was during the plague years when human population, and therefore early CO2 generation plus forest harvesting, was significantly reduced.
> 
> What I've personally come down to as what to watch for over the next few years to decade or so isn't so much CO2 levels and 1/10 degree average surface annual up-ticks and summertime arctic ice reductions. I'm figuring the threat, and a very real one, is of these *apparently* slight warming trends *already* being enough to be causing a real flushing out of methane hydrate deposits both in permafrost and continental shelf areas under upwards of a few hundred feet of arctic seawater. IF the present arctic ice thinning quickly becomes nearly an iceless arctic during several summer months and is measurably slower to freeze back over in the deep winter, the sea water up there *will* warm another degree or two pretty quickly and methane fizz releases could become a classic snowballing positive feedback loop, with its own greenhouse effect (100X or so more intense than that of CO2 weight-for-weight) taking over from CO2 as the direct cause of more and more methane release in that region.
> 
> The really alarmist extrapolations (like from McPherson) are that such a feedback runaway could increase temperatures 10C globally within a couple of decades, *numbers that were last seen before mammals evolved at all, during the Permian extinction, when some 90% of all species of that time went belly-up. *


I don't understand all the minutiae, but my thought after reading your post was, 'if that happens, there's nothing man is going to do to stop/overcome it......not even Obama, not Algore, not the UN'.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

There were some remarks in one of the links I gave where someone mentioned that there could be a connection between solar activity and volcanoes. That Maunder Minimums coincide with large eruptions. But they admitted that the solar observation before the mid 1600s were pretty unreliable so it was hard to get a fix on this.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> Let's see; a ten degree rise would put us at 108 today


Totally simplistic view. Such a global temperature rise would certainly destroy the earth's ecosystem and likely exterminate mankind and most other vertebrates.



> 'if that happens, there's nothing man is going to do to stop/overcome it.


 I agree. I think so much of the global power elite depends on 1) expanding human population 2) expanding human (conspicuous) consumption 3) continued power generation and transport using carbon-based fossil fuels that right up to some undeniable TEOTWAWKI collapse cascade, advertising and supposedly rational news media will be glossing over the predictions even if things are developing right along with these exponentially-upward curves. "Cognitive dissonance." A lot of other threats are within the range of human rationality to cope with or adjust to, but if we've already overshot greenhouse gas levels necessary to trigger self-generating feedbacks (until methane has mostly leached out of sediments and permafrost after a century or two), I have very very little belief that "geoengineering" could be funded and organized on a scale to reverse what may already be well underway.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ng_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Raeven said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ng_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html


I read that. I'm amazed that people think mankind has a greater effect on the Earth's climate than the Sun.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Darren said:


> I read that. I'm amazed that people think mankind has a greater effect on the Earth's climate than the Sun.


Then you haven't studied on it enough.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Darren said:


> I read that. I'm amazed that people think mankind has a greater effect on the Earth's climate than the Sun.


I'm no longer amazed at *what* people think, but I can't always figure out WHY they think it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

As always, follow the money. Anytime you see a full court marketing effort, hold on to your wallet. It doesn't matter if it's an engineer down on his luck in Nigeria, a company selling its latest sugar laden cereal or someone who is trying to convince you the Sun has an irrelevant effect on the climate.

There are actually some that believe the Sun is smaller than the Earth.

The most effective sales motivation beyond all others is fear. Many have made money capitalizing on P.T. Barnum's famous quote. Combine that with fear and you have a surefire winner.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

plowjockey said:


> Man is contributing to climate change. This is natural occurance.



Horse hockey!


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/13/3679662/global-warming-speed-up-not-ice-age/
> 
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ng_no_were_not_headed_for_a_mini_ice_age.html


These types of articles make me wonder, if things are going to be as catastrophic as they claim, what could man possible do to prevent it? 

It seems that the more skeptical people become, the more hysterical/dire the predictions become by AGW 'scientists'.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

> what could man possible do to prevent it?


We could have listened to Malthus and limited population growth beginning in the 1800s, with a major leg of how to do so being heavier taxation to fund good education for everyone worldwide. We could have taken more personal satisfaction in "quality" living rather than conspicuous consumption. We could have limited inheritance of wealth so as to level the playing field for individual success in each subsequent generation. We could have restricted effects of advertising making our idiotic resource wastage seem normal and even admirable. We could have controlled lobbying firms and made elections publicly funded rather than having office-holders of both parties bought by corporations and families of inherited fossil fuel wealth like the Koch brothers. We could have taxed nonrenewable resources more heavily to fund infrastructure such as rail and public transport, plus slowing down our waste of such resources (not to mention spewing out of greenhouse gas CO2). We could have avoided our disastrous suburban sprawl, totally automobile-dependent now for basic survival, primed for outright collapse during even a few weeks of fuel or grid power withdrawal.

We could have maintained a culture of more of a homesteading lifestyle, sustainable with a sensible global human population. That wouldn't mean primitive or uneducated, either. Look at the writing from our founding fathers of over 200 years back. What percent of our present population can approach their vocabulary and logic?

But we didn't. So now we're dealing with such idiocy as "oh but man can't change the climate" yadda yadda, when we've demonstrably done exactly that. We've taken many tens of millions of years' of "stored sunlight," sequestered carbon in the form of coal and petroleum, and dumped its heat plus heat-trapping CO2 effect back into the surface of the planet over maybe a century or two. That's faster than it was stored by a factor of a million or ten million or some such. All by man, all within an eyeblink of geological historical time.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

So the solution is to carp about people not being all knowing while depending on some being all knowing and taking their word for every action that is so disadvantageous to you personally and which is not clear to even the advocates? 
Real solutions deal with they way people actually are, not ranting that they should be different.
You tout the homesteading life style and give the founding fathers as an example. Well, the founding fathers ran slave plantations or actually supported themselves by being lawyers, clergy, merchants and even they nonslave owning had servants and hired hands whose lives were not so glorious. They did not live intellectual lives based on their own physical labor alone. And those people not so blessed with other means of support relied on large families to secure a livelihood.

People are just now being overwhelmed with population increases due to health improvements that were the result science developed no more than 200 years ago and, most recently, with vaccinations and antibiotics. It is not reasonable to demand that age old successful behavior should suddenly change because of the agitation of a few believers.

So how about developing an easier to understand explanation for why you believe this is happening then work to provide the means to encourage change as a matter of survival.

And good luck on figuring out who gets chidren and who doesn't in the search for population control. Right now there is a bigger push for unrestricted immigration from poor, over populated countries rather than the Chinese mandated family limits.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

There's still too much scientists do not understand about climate. Finding out that the Sun controls cloud formation should have been more than a hint. The recent discovery that heat from deep in the Earth affects Antarctica is another.

There's a massive effort to stampede people into supporting an agenda that will decimate families. As it is, the big corporations don't care. They get new facilities that will paid for by the working people. It's going to be bad when families have t decide between paying their utility bills and eating.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

DryHeat said:


> We could have listened to Malthus and limited population growth beginning in the 1800s, with a major leg of how to do so being heavier taxation to fund good education for everyone worldwide. We could have taken more personal satisfaction in "quality" living rather than conspicuous consumption. We could have limited inheritance of wealth so as to level the playing field for individual success in each subsequent generation. We could have restricted effects of advertising making our idiotic resource wastage seem normal and even admirable. We could have controlled lobbying firms and made elections publicly funded rather than having office-holders of both parties bought by corporations and families of inherited fossil fuel wealth like the Koch brothers. We could have taxed nonrenewable resources more heavily to fund infrastructure such as rail and public transport, plus slowing down our waste of such resources (not to mention spewing out of greenhouse gas CO2). We could have avoided our disastrous suburban sprawl, totally automobile-dependent now for basic survival, primed for outright collapse during even a few weeks of fuel or grid power withdrawal.
> 
> We could have maintained a culture of more of a homesteading lifestyle, sustainable with a sensible global human population. That wouldn't mean primitive or uneducated, either. Look at the writing from our founding fathers of over 200 years back. What percent of our present population can approach their vocabulary and logic?
> 
> But we didn't. So now we're dealing with such idiocy as "oh but man can't change the climate" yadda yadda, when we've demonstrably done exactly that. We've taken many tens of millions of years' of "stored sunlight," sequestered carbon in the form of coal and petroleum, and dumped its heat plus heat-trapping CO2 effect back into the surface of the planet over maybe a century or two. That's faster than it was stored by a factor of a million or ten million or some such. All by man, all within an eyeblink of geological historical time.



So let me get this straight..

So is it global cooling/winter?
Global warming?
Global cooling/ ice age?

If there is a new ice age coming then shouldn't we be doing things such as pumping CO2 into the atmosphere to warm things up, per your claim?

You want to blame over population..

So how about you prove to us that you truly believe that man made climate change is real and caused by over population..

Commit suicide and start the process to help relive the planet of over population.. Prove to the world that you and others truly believe in what you state..

Don't forget to get all your friends to martyr themselves also to save the planet.

Do your part to stop over population.. Stand up for what you claim to truly believe..


Yea, that's what I thought.. you are another one that only wants to eliminate others for the "cause" but your actions tells the truth..

What you call science most of us would call religion, because it takes a huge leap of faith to prove it...


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> So the solution is to carp about people not being all knowing while depending on some being all knowing and taking their word for every action that is so disadvantageous to you personally and which is not clear to even the advocates?
> Real solutions deal with they way people actually are, not ranting that they should be different.
> You tout the homesteading life style and give the founding fathers as an example. Well, the founding fathers ran slave plantations or actually supported themselves by being lawyers, clergy, merchants and even they nonslave owning had servants and hired hands whose lives were not so glorious. They did not live intellectual lives based on their own physical labor alone. And those people not so blessed with other means of support relied on large families to secure a livelihood.
> 
> ...


Why? I know darned well that you aren't stupid and you understood exactly what Dry Heat said. Why enable continued stupidity in other people? Dry Heat's posts were perfectly comprehensible and simple to understand and he was dead on for what's happening and why it's happening, he nailed it to the wall. If other people can't comprehend it and can't understand that he already did provide the means to change then there's probably no chance of fixing their kind of stupid no matter how much he simplifies it and it's not Dry Heat's responsibility to make them understand. People like that are a burden and a hindrance to society and the world is better off to have them go extinct anyway.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

This Mathusian crap has come out of the shadows half a dozen times since I was a boy. Each time man has adapted himself to the new conditions and is living better today than when I was born. 

The ridiculous idea that a ten degree temp change would exterminate the human race is just that, ridiculous. Even if it came in a period as short as 20 years there would be places on earth where the climate was habitable---mountain ranges, for example that are now too cold for humans would be temperate. Elephants might again graze where their mammoth kin once thrived.

The idea that the maunder minimum was made so cold because of volcanic action is also nutty. We've had monster volcanic eruptions within my lifetime on a pretty regular basis, and none of them were capable of destroying the climate. Krakatoa, in the 19th century, might have caused the most damage, but even that was not enough to seriously harm the environment. 

It is sheer lunacy to arrogate to humans power greater than that of the universe.

Similarly, it is silly to claim that mankind cannot deal with calamity. Even if there were a devastating, earth-shaking, man-killing climate change there would be those who survived. 

When I postulated giant air-conditioned greenhouses as human habitation I was not joking. Men would do something like this if forced to do it for survival.

I'll add a caveat: I believe in a greater power than mankind. When the Maker decides that man is done we will be done, not before, and we won't be told about it beforehand.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

How successful has carping been? If it is urgent, then isn't it time to try a more effective approach? Like consistency and tackling the hard issues? Like holding movie stars, funders of environmental causes, politician, etc to the same nagging standards , even if they make supporting noises?

You are right that I'm not stupid, and, while it is a reasonable assumption that green house gases do effect the earth's temperatures, neither the state of the science nor people who repeat "climate change" without understanding the complexities like an article of faith are not that impressive.
Worse is the constant treating of any questions and complexities as if anything but full worship to the liturgy means the questioner is a moron. 
The trouble with words like the last line, besides being foul and self righteous beyond measure, is that, if you understood the science yourself, you would be able to respond to inform without invective, and if you don't, you should not get angry at those whose understanding is at the same level but simply choose to believe something else.
As for duties- anyone who perceives a serious problem and will not try to take action that is effective for the sake of preening about their superiority is worse than ineffective- they are exacerbating the problem.


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

Sounds pretty presumptuous to say you have some way of knowing what I personally have or haven't done. To the editorial "you," you're full of it. I sacrificed a promising scientific career, having rubbed elbows with some top-notch virologists and ecologists (including a couple of MacArthur grant winners) in the late 60s and early 70s, and managed a reasonably effective local environmental activist group including participating in a national workshop organized by Wally Hickel when he was Interior Secretary under Nixon, of all people. I agree that Gore in particular is disgustingly wallowing in personal luxury in such a way as to define hypocrisy considering the implications of his core environmental climate messages, but that doesn't make his climate statements incorrect. He's quite right, in fact. Note he also did jump to send a couple of planes, on his pledge to pay, and with his personal hands-on help moving victims, to rescue over 250 patients stranded a few days after Katrina. Contrast that to "W" staring out of a plane window without it occurring to him that as C-in-C he just might've ordered a fleet of choppers to at least dump food and water immediately to the Morial Convention Center. People are and always have been and always will be, a mixed bag of motives and effectiveness. Note the complete irony in one of the truly non-hypocritical personal purist environmental advocates from the 70s, Ralph Nader, having undeniably cost Gore the 2000 Presidency with his obstinate refusal to withdraw from playing the spoiler. Iraq and right-wing Supreme Court, Helllooo! You see, there are too many other "legs" to the giant spider of "the problem" for a few individuals living totally dedicated lives to do more than produce their 5% or 10% of the electorate numbers in sporadic ballot performances. As I pointed out, the other percentages are bought and paid for by corporations, Kochs, and so on, carefully researched as to just how much needs be spent for ads for which candidates (hello, Citizens United decision) to get just enough 51% winners to maintain the sheeple status quo. 

I personally saw in the 70s that there was no way to overcome the inertia of what we've built. So, I mostly ignore idiocy like climate change deniers and such since we'll see the inevitable collapse from some combo or another soon enough, except that with a future smaller human regime, just maybe there'll be enough record of who was right and what went wrong that the rebuilders, if there are any, can get it better in the future. As Diderot is quoted from the 1700s, "Let us strangle the last king with the guts of the last priest."

Along with my already-posted quite depressing arctic climate change links, I try to bookmark various devices and strategies for human recovery after a traumatic depopulating process but one that somehow doesn't extend to human extinction. (The theme of homesteading rural defensible agrarian sites is of course primary for that approach.) Here's a good link to start at and click outwards to other ideas: http://the-knowledge.org/en-gb/post-apocalyptic-apps/ What am I DOING? I'm accepting that there is no way to avoid collapse, trying to point that out to a few listeners, trying not to let quite as many fall under the drumbeat idiocy of the climate change denier yammering, and suggesting that the true positive focus can be how to rebuild, but that it needs be a very different and more intelligent world than what we seem to have right now. If not, big deal, I can reincarnate back to Alpha Centauri as a sentient cephalopod and not have to try to cope with humanity any further anyway. <<Imagine a smiley of the flying spaghetti monster, or perhaps, "Praise Bob.">>


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

I always have to laugh at those that say Katrina was bad rue to GW. Or that Sandy was. There has always been bad hurricanes and they strike when ever things are just correct in the Gulf and the East Coast.
And the GW folks said right afterwards more and stronger ones. Well Where are they?
The last few years have been very quiet. But sooner or later a big one will once again rear its ugliness and when that does the GW religious believers will say see I told you so. Ya Right. I have your more and stronger hurricanes right here. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

where I want to said:


> if you understood the science yourself, you would be able to respond to inform without invective.


 Yeah, he probably did about 20 times till he got fed up arguing with people whose knowledge of climate science amounts to little more than a hatred of ALGORE and a partisan political opinion.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Yeah, he probably did about 20 times till he got fed up arguing with people whose knowledge of climate science amounts to little more than a hatred of ALGORE and a partisan political opinion.


Going to the trouble of complaining that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid is not even cdoing nothing"- it is creating opposition and hardening positions. If that is all that can be done, silence is better.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> I always have to laugh at those that say Katrina was bad rue to GW. Or that Sandy was. There has always been bad hurricanes and they strike when ever things are just correct in the Gulf and the East Coast.
> And the GW folks said right afterwards more and stronger ones. Well Where are they?
> The last few years have been very quiet. But sooner or later a big one will once again rear its ugliness and when that does the GW religious believers will say see I told you so. Ya Right. I have your more and stronger hurricanes right here. LOL


You're aware that hurricane season is during the warmer months of they year, aren't you? Why do you suppose that is? You don't believe that a correlation between warmer weather and stronger & more frequent hurricanes is reasonable?

What will we tell our grandchildren was the reason for not following scientific recommendations? You'll have to tell them that you get your climate advice from Fox News instead of scientists. I kind of doubt that they'll consider that to be reasonable.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You're aware that hurricane season is during the warmer months of they year, aren't you? Why do you suppose that is? .


Oh for Pete's Sake~!

Like I said Where Are They?



> US Hurricane Strikes Are At An All-Time Low
> Posted on February 8, 2015 by stevengoddard
> In the 1880&#8217;s the US averaged more than two hurricane strikes per year, but *now there are less than one per year.*.* Experts predicted the exact opposite.*












https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/us-hurricane-strikes-are-at-an-all-time-low/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And more severe storms on land also. Where are they?
Severe Weather Drought:* Tornadoes drop to a new all time record low*, major hurricane absence is setting a new record every day



> In a blow to those that want to link increased severe weather with global warming/climate change, a new record low has been set according to NOAA tornado data. At the same time, it has been 2750 days (7 years, 6 months, 11 days) since the last major Hurricane (Cat 3 or greater) hit the USA on October 24th 2005 when hurricane Wilma made landfall. Each new day is a new record in this major hurricane drought.












http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/04/tornadoes-drop-to-new-record-alltime-low/


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

DryHeat said:


> We could have listened to Malthus and limited population growth beginning in the 1800s, with a major leg of how to do so being heavier taxation to fund good education for everyone worldwide. We could have taken more personal satisfaction in "quality" living rather than conspicuous consumption. We could have limited inheritance of wealth so as to level the playing field for individual success in each subsequent generation. We could have restricted effects of advertising making our idiotic resource wastage seem normal and even admirable. We could have controlled lobbying firms and made elections publicly funded rather than having office-holders of both parties bought by corporations and families of inherited fossil fuel wealth like the Koch brothers. We could have taxed nonrenewable resources more heavily to fund infrastructure such as rail and public transport, plus slowing down our waste of such resources (not to mention spewing out of greenhouse gas CO2). We could have avoided our disastrous suburban sprawl, totally automobile-dependent now for basic survival, primed for outright collapse during even a few weeks of fuel or grid power withdrawal.
> 
> We could have maintained a culture of more of a homesteading lifestyle, sustainable with a sensible global human population. That wouldn't mean primitive or uneducated, either. Look at the writing from our founding fathers of over 200 years back. What percent of our present population can approach their vocabulary and logic?
> 
> But we didn't. So now we're dealing with such idiocy as "oh but man can't change the climate" yadda yadda, when we've demonstrably done exactly that. We've taken many tens of millions of years' of "stored sunlight," sequestered carbon in the form of coal and petroleum, and dumped its heat plus heat-trapping CO2 effect back into the surface of the planet over maybe a century or two. That's faster than it was stored by a factor of a million or ten million or some such. All by man, all within an eyeblink of geological historical time.


Human guilt, anyone?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*New Study: â2013 ranks as one of the least extreme U.S. weather years everââ Many bad weather events at âhistorically low levelsâ*


> There have been many forecasts in the news in recent years predicting more and more extreme weather-related events in the US, but for 2013 that prediction has been way off the mark. Whether youâre talking about tornadoes, wildfires, extreme heat or hurricanes, the good news is that weather-related disasters in the US are all way down this year compared to recent years and, *in some cases, down to historically low levels.*


http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/10/18/new-study-2013-ranks-as-one-of-the-least-extreme-us-weather-years-ever-many-bad-weather-events-at-historically-low-levels/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Oh for Pete's Sake~!


You didn't answer my question. Why do you suppose hurricane season is during the warmer months of the year, and why do hurricanes seldom occur during cooler months?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're aware that hurricane season is during the warmer months of they year, aren't you? Why do you suppose that is? You don't believe that a correlation between warmer weather and stronger & more frequent hurricanes is reasonable?
> 
> What will we tell our grandchildren was the reason for not following scientific recommendations? You'll have to tell them that you get your climate advice from Fox News instead of scientists. I kind of doubt that they'll consider that to be reasonable.


We will have to tell them the truth, that liberals would be willing to lie and cheat to try to convince some folks that THEY are right about global warming (which it isnt). We will also have to tell them that media outlets that push the liberal control agenda were responsible for the demise of living conditions because of these fanatical liberal policies.

That's what we will HAVE to tell them. Pretty sad and pathetic too.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Nevada? What are you trying to imply? Everyone knows that hurricanes that hit N. America are fueled by ocean heat. So???? Why are they down? Is it because the oceans are cooler, not warmer????

Was that your point? I thought you were a global warming enthusiast. 

A better question in my thinking would be "Why do university professors who are global warming alarmists find it necessary to fake their data?"


----------



## OffGridCooker (Jan 29, 2010)

Global warming is so yesterday !!
The ice age is the new rage !!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> We will have to tell them the truth, that liberals would be willing to lie and cheat to try to convince some folks that THEY are right about global warming (which it isnt). We will also have to tell them that media outlets that push the liberal control agenda were responsible for the demise of living conditions because of these fanatical liberal policies.
> 
> That's what we will HAVE to tell them. Pretty sad and pathetic too.


And if you & Fox News are mistaken and science is correct?
(what are the odds, right? LOL)


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> And if you & Fox News are mistaken and science is correct?
> (what are the odds, right? LOL)


So, we will adapt like we always do. Please remember, real climate scientists disagree with your claims. Not all are in agreement or on board with the ipcc. To many lies told to be considered trustworthy, don't you agree?

What will you do if Fox and thousands of climate scientists are right, and you and your scientists are wrong! Pay back the hundreds of billions spent perpetuating a myth? :hysterical:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> So, we will adapt like we always do. Please remember, real climate scientists disagree with your claims. Not all are in agreement or on board with the ipcc. To many lies told to be considered trustworthy, don't you agree?
> 
> What will you do if Fox and thousands of climate scientists are right, and you and your scientists are wrong! Pay back the hundreds of billions spent perpetuating a myth? :hysterical:


The idea that there's any realistic dispute about climate change or its cause is probably the biggest misconception of all. Admittedly, conservatives have been successful in promoting that, but it's simply not so.

This is an age-old tactic. Tobacco companies successfully used the same ploy with the dangers of smoking. They suggested that a lot of doctors disagreed that smoking posed a health risk, and had doctors endorse particular brands. But that didn't make smoking any less dangerous.

I get it. You're trying to save a few bucks in taxes and pad the pockets of American business by suggesting that their pollution isn't hurting anything. But you know that's absurd on its face.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

MO_cows said:


> Human guilt, anyone?


 Its called recognizing the effects of actions. Where do you think that petroleum in your tank goes as you drive down the road? Much of it goes up, up, up into the atmosphere where it imperceptibly acts as a thermal blanket. Transparent to visible light, opaque to re-radiated longwave radiation. In other words, a greenhouse gas. I've yet to hear the climate-change deniers try to explain how basic chemistry and physics is wrong.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And the vehicles are so clean now not much at all comes out the exhaust. Very little compared to years ago cars that burn some oil are so clean they do not even Smoke anymore.~!
That is because of the EGR valve that recirculates the gases. the catalytic converter those that still have them on that is. My is off on my '89 GMC just a straight pipe. LOL
Car Exhaust is Down 98% from the 1960s. But STILL the epa wants tighter and tighter regulations. Foolish and dumb and down right stupid but was ALL are paying at the pumps for this stupidness.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The idea that there's any realistic dispute about climate change or its cause is probably the biggest misconception of all. Admittedly, conservatives have been successful in promoting that, but it's simply not so.
> 
> *The misconception is that global warming pushers are just wrong, not all scientists are in agreement, that is the truth, but the socialists have been trying their best to convince people that ALL scientists agree that global warming is happening. They have been moderately successful at convincing those gullible enough to believe and stick by their lies.*
> 
> ...


I never suggested that pollution is good, did i? Please point out exactly where i did say that? Just don't want good folks to loose their lifestyles over something trumped up by control freaks who want to make huge bucks over nothing, think carbon credits!!

But at least we know your fine with those unbalanced-environmentalists make billions off peoples backs and plunging them into thirds world status!! :thumb:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Its called recognizing the effects of actions. Where do you think that petroleum in your tank goes as you drive down the road? Much of it goes up, up, up into the atmosphere where it imperceptibly acts as a thermal blanket. Transparent to visible light, opaque to re-radiated longwave radiation. In other words, a greenhouse gas. I've yet to hear the climate-change deniers try to explain how basic chemistry and physics is wrong.


It appears that no one denies that! Just questioning the effect it has on the earth. So far, the promoters of climate change haven't been right about much, have they?

When did Co2 become a greenhouse gas? Why?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> This story about the sun not putting out enough energy is a lie. The church of the global warming says it is just a conspiracy being propagated by deniers. The earth is heating by tiny amounts of CO2 added to the atmosphere and we are all going to burn up. This solar minimum excuse is so the deniers claim they don't need to stop adding CO2 to the air. Deniers will even claim they are trying to save the earth. Heretics!
> 
> Personally, I think that some men have a tremendous ego. Thinking man can change not only the earth but the sun too. What we know of history is the climate always changes, oscillating between warm and cold temperatures, CO2 oscillating between high and low concentrations. The sun oscillating between minimums and maximums, it is all natural. What little man adds or subtracts is insignificant in the over all major scheme of things.
> 
> ...


I wasn't gonna read another climate change algorwarming thread but were on vacation, on our way to cabin in OR & I AM SICK! Ack, sinus infection that the doc couldn't clear up b4 I left, obviously, came back day after antibiotics were done.

So now y'all can feel sorry for me. On vacation, no less. :facepalm:

Anyway went to fossil butte park, read most stuff & just like this chart! 500 mill yrs ago CO2 was 20 times that of now...gosh, how big were the SUVs back then anyway! And the coal plants!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I wasn't gonna read another climate change algorwarming thread but were on vacation, on our way to cabin in OR & I AM SICK! Ack, sinus infection that the doc couldn't clear up b4 I left, obviously, came back day after antibiotics were done.
> 
> So now y'all can feel sorry for me. On vacation, no less. :facepalm:
> 
> Anyway went to fossil butte park, read most stuff & just like this chart! 500 mill yrs ago CO2 was 20 times that of now...gosh, how big were the SUVs back then anyway! And the coal plants!


Hope you feel better, being sick and away from home is the pits!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> How successful has carping been? If it is urgent, then isn't it time to try a more effective approach? Like consistency and tackling the hard issues? Like holding movie stars, funders of environmental causes, politician, etc to the same nagging standards , even if they make supporting noises?
> 
> You are right that I'm not stupid, and, while it is a reasonable assumption that green house gases do effect the earth's temperatures, neither the state of the science nor people who repeat "climate change" without understanding the complexities like an article of faith are not that impressive.
> Worse is the constant treating of any questions and complexities as if anything but full worship to the liturgy means the questioner is a moron.
> ...


Post of the Milleneum award.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> The misconception is that global warming pushers are just wrong, not all scientists are in agreement, that is the truth, but the socialists have been trying their best to convince people that ALL scientists agree that global warming is happening. They have been moderately successful at convincing those gullible enough to believe and stick by their lies.


The consensus is overwhelming in survey after survey. Here are the results of 8 surveys.









https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You didn't answer my question. Why do you suppose hurricane season is during the warmer months of the year, and why do hurricanes seldom occur during cooler months?


And we were told, whatever year that was that we had so many storms, that it was absolutely b/c of global warming & we were going to see increases in the storms and the severity from now on. This was our fate. We are bad fossilfuelburners & now we all will die. Or kinda like that.
But, hey, didn't happen, did it? 
That's what AK is saying, we have not had that increase in storms we were threatened with a few years ago.
Had the snowiest coldest winter in a long time. Hmmm...hence: Climate Change.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Oxankle said:


> Nevada? What are you trying to imply? Everyone knows that hurricanes that hit N. America are fueled by ocean heat. So???? Why are they down? Is it because the oceans are cooler, not warmer????
> 
> Was that your point? I thought you were a global warming enthusiast.
> 
> A better question in my thinking would be "Why do university professors who are global warming alarmists find it necessary to fake their data?"


Post of the decade award.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> That's what AK is saying, we have not had that increase in storms we were threatened with a few years ago.


Actually, what he said was that 2012 was a slow year.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Actually, what he said was that 2012 was a slow year.


And it STILL IS SLOW go Use Google and find out. That was just ONE that I posted they have been slow for a LONG time now, but then again that doesn't support you that are so into this new religion is it? 
And if you would do some research besides just berating a person you would find out that 2014 was even LOWER then 2012. LOL


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Anyway went to fossil butte park, read most stuff & just like this chart! 500 mill yrs ago CO2 was 20 times that of now...gosh, how big were the SUVs back then anyway! And the coal plants!


 If you're at all curious, your questions about the apparent higher CO2 in the Ordovican period can be answered here
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
During the beginning of that era, the high CO2 did lead to higher temps. 


> At the beginning of the period, around 485.4 Â± 1.9 million years ago, the climate was very hot due to high levels of CO2, which gave a strong greenhouse effect. The marine waters are assumed to have been around 45 Â°C (113 Â°F), which restricted the diversification of complex multi-cellular organisms.


 There was also a glaciation during that period, much later, after the marine life sucked down all the carbon into their shells., and great mountain building episodes bound even more CO2 through weathering... CO2 was still higher than today though.
Essentially, the continents were mostly configured in the southern hemisphere, much closer to the south pole. The suns irradiance was roughly 4% lower, thus glaciation is possible even with CO2 levels ten times higher than today. (keep in mind the CO2 estimates from that long ago are subject to high levels of uncertainty) The earth of 500 million years ago is not the earth of today. In the past few million years, the trigger for widespread polar ice cap melting seems to be around 700ppm of CO2, a number we are over halfway to.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Its called recognizing the effects of actions. Where do you think that petroleum in your tank goes as you drive down the road? Much of it goes up, up, up into the atmosphere where it imperceptibly acts as a thermal blanket. Transparent to visible light, opaque to re-radiated longwave radiation. In other words, a greenhouse gas. I've yet to hear the climate-change deniers try to explain how basic chemistry and physics is wrong.


Skeptics, not in denial. I have no doubt the climate is changing, it has since the beginning of this planet. Skeptical that the so called experts can reliably predict the future of climate on a global scale when they have yet to master earthquakes, El Nino, volcanoes, hurricanes, shoot even the 5 day forecast. When's the last time that was accurate? And when their latest and greatest models, run backwards, don't even accurately line up with the historical record of climate. 

So drastically making the lifestyle of pretty much every human being on the planet worse, and giving so much power and control to a few elites who think they are such supreme beings they know all and see into the future, is not something I am willing to accept especially at our current level of knowledge. Particularly when the call for action on climate change is so steeped with political rhetoric about the sins of mankind and capitalists in particular, as evidenced by Dryheat a couple pages back. 

And nobody is giving credit where credit is due, that advances in our technology (which are likely to be highly lucrative by the way, so take that) are making us more efficient with our use of energy all the time. We are using less electricity and propane at our house than we did a decade ago because we insulated better and upgraded the furnace and a/c units. As did millions of other people. We are already headed in the right direction, there is no need to push us off the cliff.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah c02 co2 co2 there are Countless more things that contribute to what you folks are saying that cause GW besides this CO2 repeated bull feathers.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> And we were told, whatever year that was that we had so many storms, that it was absolutely b/c of global warming & we were going to see increases in the storms and the severity from now on. This was our fate. We are bad fossilfuelburners & now we all will die. Or kinda like that..


 People hype things up all the time to gain attention, get ratings, or drive web traffic. Has nothing to do with the hard-won scientific knowledge that says yes, continuing to fill the air with carbon dioxide will lead to warmer temps, just as it has many times in the past when the trigger was natural events. Mankind just happens to be that natural event this time.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And it STILL IS SLOW go Use Google and find out. That was just ONE that I posted they have been slow for a LONG time now, but then again that doesn't support you that are so into this new religion is it?
> And if you would do some research besides just berating a person you would find out that 2014 was even LOWER then 2012. LOL


You know, it's one thing to deny that climate change is caused by man, but quite another to deny that climate change is happening at all. We know that the earth is warming because the sea level is rising. It's measurable, so it's frivolous to deny it.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You know, it's one thing to deny that climate change is caused by man, but quite another to deny that climate change is happening at all. We know that the earth is warming because the sea level is rising. It's measurable, so it's frivolous to deny it.


What if its so minuscule that we don't even notice? I have an old small family beach house that my great grandfather built almost a century(100 years) ago, i can't tell that the ocean is any higher now than it was 50 years ago when my parents first started taking me up there! I've been going to the Southern California beaches for half a century(50 years+) I'm a surfer dude bro!! Really!! I was born and raised in like the valley. Skateboard and BMX heaven! I'm also a desert rat(West Mojave mostly, but still all over) I have the skin to prove it!! My point is that i have not seen these horrific, epic changes....at all! :shrug:

I will say that since there are tides and moon influence and the fact that the ocean is always moving can make it difficult, but, to me and the family that i've asked, not one can tell a difference.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya it is so laughable and sad at the same time, that a few are so gullible to believe the ocean is rising. IF any rise at all, it IS measured in mm. NOT INCHES. And certainly not in feet. LOL


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

greg273 said:


> If you're at all curious, your questions about the apparent higher CO2 in the Ordovican period can be answered here
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
> During the beginning of that era, the high CO2 did lead to higher temps.
> 
> ...



WHAT? 

No SUV's, No Coal Plants? 

IT was all NATURAL CO2.. 

Well Imagine that!

Yet now the levels aren't as high, yet it's mans fault and isn't natural..

Well you have taken a leap of faith in blaming man for the so called higher CO2 levels yet higher levels occur naturally..

Isn't the Earth still shedding off the NATURALLY formed carbon of the past?

Yet it's man's fault.. Wow

Let me guess the science can't be repeated with the same results.. We have to rely on these "scientists" word of honor that they are telling us the truth..

Sorry I don't believe you or your garbage you call science.. The numbers don't add up and the GW community keep changing the numbers to benefit themselves..

Yes I know I'm not a "scientist" I'm just a draftmans/CADD Operator specializing in Arch & Civil, so I understand how the numbers have to work.
Oh I'm also an amateur Magician, so I do know the difference between "magic" and science. The Illusion of magic is quite often passed off as science, such as this carp of Global Warming/ Climate Change (man made)/Global Cooling..


Oh on a side note: for the last few years or so these Chicken Littles have called for numerous hurricanes and devastating storms. This year they are saying there will only be a few and minor..

So since they've been wrong consistently I'm stocking extra preps and playing the odds that they will be wrong again and there will be quite a few bad ones.. 
If I'm wrong no one was hurt and it cost no one anything to support me or my decision.. Unlike GW Religion folks.. They want every one else to pay for what they believe..


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> If you're at all curious, your questions about the apparent higher CO2 in the Ordovican period can be answered here
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
> During the beginning of that era, the high CO2 did lead to higher temps.
> 
> ...


So what caused those higher CO2 levels? As Tricky asked, just how big _were_ those SUVs back then?

I also find you comment about CO2 estimates being subject to high levels of uncertainty. Even your quote contains the word '*assumed*'. Yet, aren't scientists using data from millions of years ago to base their claim on today? 

Sorry, but as long as the claims/predictions of catastrophic events are being based on anything other than absolute, provable, undeniable fact, I'll remain skeptical.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

The claim that scientists are in agreement on global warming is bogus. The global warming enthusiasts count every weatherman, every college professor and every data-faking global-warming advocate as a "scientist". 

The facts are that those people whose life has been devoted to studying climate and the history of climatic differences are NOT all in agreement. Nothing like a consensus.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> The claim that scientists are in agreement on global warming is bogus. The global warming enthusiasts count every weatherman, every college professor and every data-faking global-warming advocate as a "scientist".
> 
> The facts are that those people whose life has been devoted to studying climate and the history of climatic differences are NOT all in agreement. Nothing like a consensus.


You must have missed my previous post. It shows pretty good agreement.









https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survey...climate_change


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You must have missed my previous post. It shows pretty good agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know that you already are set in your beliefs, but does it not even give you pause that these experts keep making discoveries about some new complexity they missed and therefore have to keep revising their previously certain predictions?

Even if correct, the issue should be what to do about it. Nuclear power? After Chernobyl and Fukushima, that is a questionable choice. Germany is cutting back their pursuit of nuclear free renewables due to costs and they are a very rich country. How many others could do this? Then it is one thing to put in place a windmill- that uncertain source- and another to have to maintain and replace them as they age. Same with solar power, which uses a lot of energy to create in the first place. 

Frankly the only solution is less people but then who choses who that less will be? 

One trouble with prophets of doom is that they confuse advocacy with usefulness. If they spent less time haranguing and more time engineering, there would be a better chance of achieving their goals. 

Beside anyone who relies on calling other people stupid has some serious problems themselves.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Even if correct, the issue should be what to do about it.


That's all this issue is about. Scientists have made very specific recommendations, but the right doesn't want to act on those recommendations because they are either expensive to implement or interfere with commerce.

The is all about a cost/benefit ratio. We pay a little now to avoid devastation later. The way the right is getting around it is by denying that there will be consequences down the road. What's missing here is accountability. Republicans aren't willing to take responsibility for acting contrary to accepted science.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Beside anyone who relies on calling other people stupid has some serious problems themselves.


Are you alleging that I've been calling people stupid in this forum?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's all this issue is about. Scientists have made very specific recommendations, but the right doesn't want to act on those recommendations because they are either expensive to implement or interfere with commerce.
> 
> The is all about a cost/benefit ratio. We pay a little now to avoid devastation later. The way the right is getting around it is by denying that there will be consequences down the road. What's missing here is accountability. Republicans aren't willing to take responsibility for acting contrary to accepted science.


But these specific scientists get their foundation, government or university salaries ticking right along so they are not exactly accountable for their errors. Too bad their own income is not equally tied into the accuracy and success of their work as is the owners of various utilities. There would be more ifs, ands and buts in their pronouncements, at least loud enough to be heard by the faithful.
Profit is an issue to be addressed as is affordability. So living in an ivory tower and berating the mindless peasants below from the balcony is the very opposite useful.
I just love to hear the secure berate the insecure for their lack of integrity.

To much of these discussions come down to trust- the foolish level of trust of the true believers versus the total lack of trust of the non believers. Well, I guess everyone has to believe in something.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Are you alleging that I've been calling people stupid in this forum?


The word has been used repeatedly. I protested its use. Did you?


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The Wikipedia article is interesting in that if you look at all of the studies, questions arise. The investigators are looking at published articles which ignores the question about how many articles were rejected by editors of journals. The bias against those scientists opposing AGW has come up. It's real. 

Anything not supporting AGW is quickly suppressed or countered. The recent study of the Sun that indicated it's entering a period of relative inactivity which will affect climate on Earth was quickly countered.

Others such as the senior biologist that has studied polar bears for decades was ignored because his work did not support the story that they are endangered.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> To much of these discussions come down to trust- the foolish level of trust of the true believers versus the total lack of trust of the non believers. Well, I guess everyone has to believe in something.


What you're missing here is that I'm a skeptic. In fact so much so that I've been criticized for not following suit as quickly as other scientists. I've always been a 'you'll have to show me that' type of person. But I always back my skepticism with other scientific principles that seem to be in conflict with a new idea.

What I'm hearing on the right is not skepticism, it's denial. Your objection is not based on science, but because you would prefer that the science be wrong. You can prove the science wrong, so you simply deny that it's credible.

As has been said many times before, scientific theory is not just a hunch, such as someone having a 'theory' that Elvis is still alive. A scientific theory has been proven through experimentation and peer review. *A scientific theory has been proven to be fact to the satisfaction of the scientific community.* I can't stress that enough.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You must have missed my previous post. It shows pretty good agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Come on Nevada, you are too smart not to see the bias in this "study". "Most frequently published" scientists, gee what a credential. I've been published quite a few times, too, not in a scientific journal but other "special interest" journals. So does that make me an expert?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Are you alleging that I've been calling people stupid in this forum?


Not you. He's referring to my post (below) where I suggested it does no good to enable continued stupidity in stupid people. 



Fennick said:


> Why? I know darned well that you aren't stupid and you understood exactly what Dry Heat said. Why enable continued stupidity in other people? Dry Heat's posts were perfectly comprehensible and simple to understand and he was dead on for what's happening and why it's happening, he nailed it to the wall. If other people can't comprehend it and can't understand that he already did provide the means to change then there's probably no chance of fixing their kind of stupid no matter how much he simplifies it and it's not Dry Heat's responsibility to make them understand. People like that are a burden and a hindrance to society and the world is better off to have them go extinct anyway.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Come on Nevada, you are too smart not to see the bias in this "study". "Most frequently published" scientists, gee what a credential. I've been published quite a few times, too, not in a scientific journal but other "special interest" journals. So does that make me an expert?


This is what I mean by denial. It doesn't say what you want so you refuse to accept it. You have no basis to dispute the claim, but you reject it on face value.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

This message from the David Suzuki Foundation was sent to me in an email today. It's not copyrighted and is intended to be freely passed along to others. Considering this thread is about climate change this is as good a medium as any to pass it along to.



> *Is the climate crisis creating a global consciousness shift? *
> 
> When an assassin killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914, no one called it the start of the First World War. That happened years later, after the implications, consequences and scale of the response could be assessed. It&#8217;s often the way. That&#8217;s why historians are important; they put events in context.
> 
> ...


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Fennick said:


> Not you. He's referring to my post (below) where I suggested it does no good to enable continued stupidity in stupid people.


Actually, if you are addressing people you consider stupid, bullying them is not designed to win them over. If you do not think their minds can be changed, why rant at them at all? If you don't care what they think, then why rant at them at all?

The only reason that calling people stupid is ever done is to admit incapability to affect the situation. Either due to lack of knowledge or through being inarticulate. 

You might try reasoning with specifics more directly to the issues they raise rather than saying all the smart people believe this and, if you don't, you must be dumb (or past it or lunatic or whatever.) I would like to here the counter argument to some questions- like why this is different than prior periods of warming or what exactly is the sustainable per capital carbon creation and is it achievable? If your understanding does include these things, is it only faith that other people are wiser than you that makes you so angry with those who don't agree? 

Enabling is a word that gives a lot more power than you have. You could possibly, if you have the understanding of the issue to be able to explain a point clearly, enable someone to see it. Hmm.... I wonder if being so rude to someone that they can't bear to hear you could enable someone else to persuade to their point in opposition to your's?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> This is what I mean by denial. It doesn't say what you want so you refuse to accept it. You have no basis to dispute the claim, but you reject it on face value.


Find one post where I said that. Just one...... You assume that raising questions or refusing to dismiss people with different opinions means I have rejected it. 

I notice that anyone asking a specific question never gets an answer. Just rhetoric. Which seems to be just as much rejecting what you don't want to hear as anyone one else has done.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> Find one post where I said that. Just one...... You assume that raising questions or refusing to dismiss people with different opinions means I have rejected it.
> 
> I notice that anyone asking a specific question never gets an answer. Just rhetoric. Which seems to be just as much rejecting what you don't want to hear as anyone one else has done.


We can't discuss the scientific merits of a theory when you reject science.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

A waste of time here; the global warming enthusiasts will never accept the fact that it ain't a happening. They'll have to get icicles on their butts before they'll admit that faked data is not going to warm the earth.

Gee I wish I were young enough to expect to see 2035 when the weather is cool here in August.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We can't discuss the scientific merits of a theory when you reject science.


I don't reject "science". I reject people who treat science as a matter of faith without understanding. Who don't examine critically. And who think that anyone who had questions as a heretic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We can't discuss the scientific merits of a theory when you reject science.


I've given you scientists that disagree with global warming theories. You rejected their science simply because YOU disagreed with them!

So, what was it you were trying to say here?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I've given you scientists that disagree with global warming theories. You rejected their science simply because YOU disagreed with them!
> 
> So, what was it you were trying to say here?


We don't know why those scientists who said 'no' were rejecting it. It may be that they can't totally agree. You assume that all negative votes were either a complete rejection or an allegation of scientific fraud. I'm not ready to say that.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> We don't know why those scientists who said 'no' were rejecting it. It may be that they can't totally agree. You assume that all negative votes were either a complete rejection of an allegation of scientific fraud. I'm not ready to say that.


As you are so ready to do the samething in the opposite direction. Both positions equally unrealistic.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> We don't know why those scientists who said 'no' were rejecting it. It may be that they can't totally agree. You assume that all negative votes were either a complete rejection of an allegation of scientific fraud. I'm not ready to say that.


Of course we know why they are rejecting their theories. The IPCC are not truthful, in plain terms....their liers. They say, as do you and the rest of your ilk, that the science is settled, that's a lie too. But you assume the IPCC and their studies and computer models are right, but there not. And have been proven time and again their not accurate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Of course we know why they are rejecting their theories. The IPCC are not truthful, in plain terms....their liers. They say, as do you and the rest of your ilk, that the science is settled, that's a lie too. But you assume the IPCC and their studies and computer models are right, but there not. And have been proven time and again their not accurate.


Scientific fraud is more difficult to pull off than you might think. Peer review is by anyone and everyone, and you're not going to fool or bribe grad students & retired scientists. Scientists sometimes publish a paper that takes a wrong turn from reason but they are exposed very quickly. What you suggest isn't very likely.

But it's interesting that the only science you attack is science that cuts against your political leanings. You don't seem to object to the science behind chemical processing, power generation, aircraft design, boiler operation, mining technology, or even commercial building & bridge construction. Why don't you object to anything but climate change or evolution? Do you think the same fraud is all throughout the other scientific disciplines?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Scientific fraud is more difficult to pull off than you might think.


And a person as well learned in as you are in the IT field knows this. 

Garbage IN, Garbage OUT.

It is EASY to mess with computers and to make graphes and other data look like what the GW religious freaks want them to look like.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

beowoulf90 said:


> WHAT?
> 
> No SUV's, No Coal Plants?
> 
> ...


Post of the decade award.

Have to say, my new fettish is fossils. Gee, any of you that live near Kemmerer should go see 'em, way cool. 
And you can see that it really was disasterous for hugh #s of life! Several Xs in the history of our earth. And just look at how much water there used to be-guess early man 2000 million yrs ago drank it all. I cannot imagine how man did it. Actually, was prolly Bush's fault.

So, I'm even willing to admit that china & India are really contributing to a little of the climate change. They have horrific air. Remember when Japanese had O2 dispensers along their streets b/c their air was so awful? Have they cleaned it up? B/c we have a bunch. So let's get those other countries in line.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

where I want to said:


> I know that you already are set in your beliefs, but does it not even give you pause that these experts keep making discoveries about some new complexity they missed and therefore have to keep revising their previously certain predictions?
> 
> Even if correct, the issue should be what to do about it. Nuclear power? After Chernobyl and Fukushima, that is a questionable choice. Germany is cutting back their pursuit of nuclear free renewables due to costs and they are a very rich country. How many others could do this? Then it is one thing to put in place a windmill- that uncertain source- and another to have to maintain and replace them as they age. Same with solar power, which uses a lot of energy to create in the first place.
> 
> ...


Oh, yup, the overpopulation deal...mid 60s? We were doomed unless we all just replaced ourselves.
One of my liberal friends berated me practically all thru my 3rd pregnancy (son born in 69) for having 3 children. I think it had something to do w/her only having girls but maybe she was serious.
Now we are told there's not enuf workers to 'support' those who will be collecting SS.
I wish they'd get it together.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It is EASY to mess with computers and to make graphes and other data look like what the GW religious freaks want them to look like.


Not when thousands of grad students will inspect your data with a critical eye. Believe me, if you publish data that assumes that water runs uphill, someone is going to speak up.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

where I want to said:


> Actually, if you are addressing people you consider stupid, bullying them is not designed to win them over. If you do not think their minds can be changed, why rant at them at all? If you don't care what they think, then why rant at them at all?
> 
> The only reason that calling people stupid is ever done is to admit incapability to affect the situation. Either due to lack of knowledge or through being inarticulate.
> 
> ...


So you don't like stupid huh? Get off your high horse and spare me the self-righteous lectures. 

Instead, go back in this thread and review all the posts from the beginning, including your own and mine. See how many posts you can spot where I and people like me who are concerned about climate change have been condescendingly referred to repeatedly (even by yourself) as *prophets of doom, true believers, GW religious freaks, frauds, the church of global warming, the faithful, greedy, elitists, insane, deceptive hypocrites, doom and bloomers, lunatics, unbalanced environmentalists, chicken littles*, etc., etc. and on and on and on. Remember to review your own posts.

I dare you to go and find all those condescending slurs, including your own slurs, count them all and note who said them then come back with your audacity to lecture me about *rudeness, bullying, and name calling being an admission of incapability to effect a situation*. Because what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and the same thing applies to those people talking trash like that and there sure is a lot of people here talking trash talk.

People who talk trash like that are STUPID and shouldn't complain when the object of their rude derision comes right back at them and tells them they're stupid. 

You have no room for complaint. Do you get it?

:facepalm:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Not when thousands of grad students will inspect your data with a critical eye. Believe me, if you publish data that assumes that water runs uphill, someone is going to speak up.


 Not when they are sipping the same cool-aid that they have been supplied by government Funded Schools, and even suckling on the same government teat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Not when they are sipping the same cool-aid that they have been supplied by government Funded Schools, and even suckling on the same government teat.


Seriously? You think state universities pervert science for political gain?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Seriously? You think state universities pervert science for political gain?


Without question! They want funding for their undergraduate programs. And they get caught doing it too!

Seriously, you don't think they do?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Fennick said:


> So you don't like stupid huh? Get off your high horse and spare me the self-righteous lectures.
> 
> Instead, go back in this thread and review all the posts from the beginning, including your own and mine. See how many posts you can spot where I and people like me who are concerned about climate change have been condescendingly referred to repeatedly (even by yourself) as *prophets of doom, true believers, GW religious freaks, frauds, the church of global warming, the faithful, greedy, elitists, insane, deceptive hypocrites, doom and bloomers, lunatics, unbalanced environmentalists, chicken littles*, etc., etc. and on and on and on. Remember to review your own posts.
> 
> ...


What you are saying, parsing out all the hyperbole, is that people who disagree with you are stupid. Did you spend even one iota of effort explaining the actual facts that create certainty in your mind about the death march of global warming? Did you even acknowledge any of the questions that were included in opposing remarks? Or you even have the information to do it? 
And then there is the whole idea, so current on this website, that out shouting is an effective action. Reading more than two words of a post before condemning it into the trash heap of stupidity might actually lead to a discussion of realities instead of pitching muck balls at each other.
One of the great problems with this philosophy of word wars is that everyone gets dragged along into ever increasing spit matches and stops listening to anyone who is not a card carrying supporter. It has become totally indiscriminate and hijacks thread after thread. When you know there are going to be a few who resort such name calling, you can step around them. When you spay vitriol indiscriminately then you simply are in a sea of muck continuously.
So what if some people you are going to despise anyway say things you don't like? Big deal. Get over it. Grow up. 
This "rude off" has been going on for months and the only thing that has happened is the volume of posting has dropped way off and the remaing posters keep going round the same ugly track. Thanks to those who pretend to a higher virtue for dragging everything into the same muck in the name of "giving as good as they get." If you think it is wrong, then you are even more bankrupt in principles that those who do it naturally. You don't care if you destroy this site innthe name of your Crusade.
I can see you don't "get it" no matter how many emoticons you slap into your posts. Simply- you are no better than those you despise- you are worse.
And so, since you offer no insight anyway, off you go into ignore.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> So what caused those higher CO2 levels? As Tricky asked, just how big _were_ those SUVs back then?
> 
> I also find you comment about CO2 estimates being subject to high levels of uncertainty. Even your quote contains the word '*assumed*'. Yet, aren't scientists using data from millions of years ago to base their claim on today?
> 
> Sorry, but as long as the claims/predictions of catastrophic events are being based on anything other than absolute, provable, undeniable fact, I'll remain skeptical.


 What 'caused' high CO2 in the atmosphere 500 million years ago? There could be many reasons, but mainly it is just the composition of the earth and its atmosphere. There is still the same amount of carbon and carbon dioxide present today, it just moves around... sometimes it is locked into carbonate rocks, sometimes it dissolves into the ocean, sometimes it is liberated into the air. Sometimes conditions are such that massive amounts of it become trapped in plants which die and get submerged, then buried, then dug up by a certain species and put BACK into the atmosphere. 
If you really want to understand this stuff, do yourself a favor and read up on the carbon cycle.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

greg273 said:


> What 'caused' high CO2 in the atmosphere 500 million years ago? There could be many reasons, but mainly it is just the composition of the earth and its atmosphere. There is still the same amount of carbon and carbon dioxide present today, it just moves around... sometimes it is locked into carbonate rocks, sometimes it dissolves into the ocean, sometimes it is liberated into the air. Sometimes conditions are such that massive amounts of it become trapped in plants which die and get submerged, then buried, then dug up by a certain species and put BACK into the atmosphere.
> If you really want to understand this stuff, do yourself a favor and read up on the carbon cycle.


Well, that is at least a response, not a total brush off. But, if a person believes that action is needed and will be effective in reducing atmospheric carbon, then they should themselves have a basis for why. 
That is what is being asked. If it is unknown what the cause was for previous high levels of carbon, how can you tell that whatever it was is not part of the problem now? Is it possible that all the possible efforts of humans disrupting their lives to reduce carbon emission will be ineffective anyway? 
And the most basic question is, even if accepting that is possible, is it achievable in reality anyway?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Without question! They want funding for their undergraduate programs. And they get caught doing it too!
> 
> Seriously, you don't think they do?


I'd like to see an example.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

where I want to said:


> That is what is being asked. If it is unknown what the cause was for previous high levels of carbon, how can you tell that whatever it was is not part of the problem now? Is it possible that all the possible efforts of humans disrupting their lives to reduce carbon emission will be ineffective anyway?
> And the most basic question is, even if accepting that is possible, is it achievable in reality anyway?


 The high levels of CO2 in the 500mya (million years ago) timeframe was caused by widespread, massive volcanic eruptions, thousands of times greater than anything we see today. 



> A major mountain-building episode was the Taconic orogeny that was well under way in Cambrian times. In the beginning of the Late Ordovician, from 460 to 450 Ma,* volcanoes along the margin of the Iapetus Ocean spewed massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, turning the planet into a hothouse.* These volcanic island arcs eventually collided with proto North America to form the Appalachian mountains. By the end of the Late Ordovician these volcanic emissions had stopped.


 So no, that is not what is causing a rise in heat-trapping CO2 these days. The cause is clearly billions of people who are digging up long-buried carbon and burning it. Human industry releases about a hundred times more CO2 into the air than does volcanic activity. 
And no, I don't think we're going to stop burning things anytime soon. Its pretty much what we do. We're going to burn coal and oil till either its gone, or we're gone. 
Was it you who said something about solar panels using 'too much energy to produce'?? In reality, the energy it takes to produce a solar panel is paid back within 2 years...and solar panels last for decades.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

The issue is not what caused the CO2 to rise, but what was the result? Clearly not catastrophic, since life flourished during that epoch. 

Second; Nevada--have you missed the news stories about the researchers in England who faked their data to show global warming? It does happen, and they did get caught. Not one of the computer "models" that have been used to claim disaster is upon us have been proven--it is all theory. Let's wait a few years and see what happens.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oxankle said:


> Second; Nevada--have you missed the news stories about the researchers in England who faked their data to show global warming? It does happen, and they did get caught. Not one of the computer "models" that have been used to claim disaster is upon us have been proven--it is all theory. Let's wait a few years and see what happens.


That's not a state university.

You see, I studied science at a state university. I didn't see any signs of perverted science or politics. I just want an example that I can identify with. I don't see how a university could teach anything other than generally accepted scientific fundamentals.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

greg273 said:


> Yes, nature doesn't care if CO2 goes up because carbon-rich sediments get subducted and belched out as high-CO2 volcanic gasses, or if 4 billiion people drive their cars every day. The result to the atmospheric chemistry is the same.


A volcano is a volcano. Not much anybody can do about it.

There is plenty man can do about our own CO2 emissions.

True Cars still emit CO2, not a whole lot can be done, because people need cars. IMO, in the future, vehicles, will be emitting zero CO2 also. It can be done, just not easily and economically at this time.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

greg273 said:


> The high levels of CO2 in the 500mya (million years ago) timeframe was caused by *widespread, massive volcanic eruptions, thousands of times greater than anything we see today*.
> 
> 
> 
> > A major mountain-building episode was the Taconic orogeny that was well under way in Cambrian times. In the beginning of the Late Ordovician, from 460 to 450 Ma,* volcanoes along the margin of the Iapetus Ocean spewed massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, turning the planet into a hothouse.* These volcanic island arcs eventually collided with proto North America to form the Appalachian mountains. By the end of the Late Ordovician these volcanic emissions had stopped.


I'll add a comment to this, focusing on this statement: *spewed massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, turning the planet into a hothouse.*

When an entire planet gets turned into a hothouse the plants that can't adapt to hothouse conditions die. Depending on how hot the planet is even some plants and other living organisms that normally could live in hot conditions may not adapt due to extended period of time of being hot and not cooling at night and so they will die too. 

However, they don't just die off, compost into organic matter and release their CO2 into the ground and atmosphere the way we know plants to do under present climate and temperature conditions. They don't turn into organic matter that returns to the soil. They will rapidly rot and disintegrate into vaporous powder like microscopic spores and release all of their compounds and pure CO2 directly into the atmosphere, even the powder goes into the atmosphere, not into the ground or water.

Soil and rocks can do the same thing under extremely hot conditions that last for an extended period of time. They will break down into the separate compounds that they were formed from and release their trapped CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

So you have a vicious cycle of heat begetting more heat and more rot and more CO2 and other trapped chemicals and gases and microscopic material being released directly into the atmosphere which then increases the hothouse conditions. The cycle doesn't end until some other phenomenon interrupts it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

No one has mentioned the "wisdom of the crowd." It's real and it works. In the light of the failed predictions of the AGW models, the other worked. The consensus is that AGW doesn't exist. The incredible part is even with the massive amounts of support from the media, the crowd continues to respond no.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cars are nearly zero NOW. 98% less in the air then a few years ago. There does NOT need to be ANY MORE HIGHER restrictions on cars and those on CA should be LOWERED as we ALL are paying for there stupidity when it comes to CO2 outputs.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Be happy. Don't worry. Azolla will save us ... until it's runaway growth kicks off an ice age.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-the-fern-that-cooled-the-planet-do-it-again/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes I know it does happen but not very much. But it did this year.
But then again this is July and it IS Hawaii.~! But snow, I know it is like 13K feet but still. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes I know it does happen but not very much. But it did this year.
> But then again this is July and it IS Hawaii.~! But snow, I know it is like 13K feet but still. LOL


I live in the Mojave Desert and we get snow every year on Mt. Charleston, only a 45 minute drive from the Las Vegas Strip. They even have a ski resort. But I don't see what that has to do with climate change.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

The difference you get snow up there EVERY year makes a whole lot of difference when this happens in Hawaii only once in a blue moon, and it happened THIS year a year that all you GW folks keeps saying its getting warmer when in fact it is NOT. It is normal three. But NOT in Hawaii don't put words into something that is not there.
Normal vs abnormal = Apples and Oranges


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The difference you get snow up there EVERY year makes a whole lot of difference when this happens in Hawaii only once in a blue moon, and it happened THIS year a year that all you GW folks keeps saying its getting warmer when in fact it is NOT. It is normal three. But NOT in Hawaii don't put words into something that is not there.
> Normal vs abnormal = Apples and Oranges


I just can't get around the fact that sea level is rising. It's measurable. We know that's because the polar ice caps are melting.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I just can't get around the fact that sea level is rising. It's measurable. We know that's because the polar ice caps are melting.


I don't see it at our beach house, explain that? It's been in our family for decades.

How high has the sea level risin? Exactly? What is the optimum temperature of the earth?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

JeffreyD said:


> *I don't see it at our beach house, explain that? It's been in our family for decades.*
> 
> How high has the sea level risin? Exactly? What is the optimum temperature of the earth?


Same here. Have lived next to the Gulf of Mexico for 60+ years, have been going to the beach all my life and I'm not able to discern any change.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> I don't see it at our beach house, explain that? It's been in our family for decades.
> 
> How high has the sea level risin? Exactly? What is the optimum temperature of the earth?





Txsteader said:


> Same here. Have lived next to the Gulf of Mexico for 60+ years, have been going to the beach all my life and I'm not able to discern any change.


You're denying something that's indisputable, since it's measurable. Scientists know precisely how much the oceans rise each year. Of course there are places that are more sensitive than others to sea level rise, but denying it is frivolous. There are islands in the Pacific that are going under water as we speak.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marshall+islands+water+level+rise


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

JeffreyD said:


> I don't see it at our beach house, explain that? It's been in our family for decades.
> 
> How high has the sea level risin? Exactly? What is the optimum temperature of the earth?


Only you can explain why you don't see it at your beach house. What signs have you been looking for? 

Scientific research indicates sea levels worldwide have been rising at an average rate of 0.14 inches (3.5 millimeters) per year since 1990. You do the math.

There is no such thing as an optimum temperature of the earth. 

Do you really mean what is the optimum temperature for all humans? That doesn't exist either. 

Thermal comfort studies indicate that no optimum temperature for humans can be defined. That is because thermal comfort is different for each individual and varies for each individual at all different stages of their life and in different locations and different climate conditions.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I just can't get around the fact that sea level is rising. It's measurable. We know that's because the polar ice caps are melting.


It has NOT risen ANY more then NORMAL 1 to 2 mm PERIOD Per year
mm ,,, not inches. and sure as heck NOT in inches.

*Reality Wake-Up Call: Climate "Experts" Sea Level Prediction Found To Be Wildly Wrong*









* New Major Study Determines Dangerous, Accelerating Sea Levels Due To CO2 Emissions Is Fantasy
*
The IPCC's discredited alarmist global warming propaganda took another serious hit from a major scientific study on the empirical evidence regarding accelerating sea levels - per the study, sea levels, due to natural, long-term oscillations, likely to increase only a scant 9 inches by century-end 
Global sea level north atlantic oscillation nao scafetta
The IPCC's refusal to incorporate and/or accept any empirical evidence that is contrary to their climate models' alarmist catastrophe predictions is well known. As a result, the IPCC's scary global warming predictions have been shown to be egregiously wrong and terribly misleading for policymakers.

The anti-science fantasy approach to the IPCC's political-driven "analysis" has suffered another major blow from a new study by Nicola Scafetta. This latest research confirms previous studies about just how wrong the IPCC has been about those "accelerating" sea level increases.

"This is a major paper, which undertakes a comprehensive review of recent studies, which diverge widely in their findings...main reason for divergence is the length of records used in studies, and shows that the quasi-cyclic oscillations of the major ocean basins largely account for the differences in those studies conclusions...it is shown that the periodicity of the major oscillations, being 60 to 70 years, require a minimum record length of around 110 years in order to prevent polynomial fitting of long term secular trends being contaminated with shorter term quasi-cyclic variation. Using tide gauge records going back as far as 1700...compares the trends in sea level rise acceleration at widely spread geographical locations once the quasi-cyclic components are removed and finds the long term global average to be very small â around 0.01mm/yr...study suggests that sea level rise during the C21st [21st century] will be around 277+/-7mm, or about 9 inches." [Nicola Scafetta 2013: Climate Dynamics]

http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It has NOT risen ANY more then NORMAL 1 to 2 mm PERIOD Per year
> mm ,,, not inches. and sure as heck NOT in inches.http://www.c3headlines.com/are-oceans-rising/


No, it's more than 3mm.

_the annual rate of rise over the past 20 years has been 0.13 inches (3.2 millimeters) a year, roughly twice the average speed of the preceding 80 years._
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...h-kiribati-maldives-cyclone-marshall-islands/

like everything else- it's complicated. This is an article on island building in places not fixed in place by infrastructure. Around my part of the world, the beaches can change radically in 10 years. Spits cut off lagoons, which become fresh water then a big storm opens them up again and the sea spills in. River mouths can move miles from one year to the next. 
Land rises and falls- that's one of the changes the big earthquake in Japan did- drop the shore height several feet so what was above high tide one year was below after the quake. In our area, it is expected a big quake will raise land level.
It is possible that no technology available today can stop this. But adapting might be the first order of the day, which is something that can be done- much as people in the richest areas- ocean front homes- might find objectionable.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> It is possible that no technology available today can stop this.


Maybe not, but denying sea rise is frivolous.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-explains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/

Ah- she comes and goes, she comes and goes....... Tyrone Power in Cafe Metropole 1933 (?)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-scientist-explains-the-mystery-of-recent-sea-level-drop/
> 
> Ah- she comes and goes, she comes and goes.......


But the article you linked to explained it.

_So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia. "Australia is really unique," said Fasullo. In the continent's eastern interior, most of the rain that falls runs inland, into a salt lake called Lake Eyre -- never reaching the sea._

I'm not crazy about the phrase 'really unique,' but the explanation makes sense.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But the article you linked to explained it.
> 
> _So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia. "Australia is really unique," said Fasullo. In the continent's eastern interior, most of the rain that falls runs inland, into a salt lake called Lake Eyre -- never reaching the sea._
> 
> I'm not crazy about the phrase 'really unique,' but the explanation makes sense.


But how can people not have a healthy dose of skepticism when there keeps being reexaminations when the modeling keeps having to be "readjusted" to explain why it didn't match what really happened? It smacks of "ignore the man behind the screen" to keep in my movie analogy mode.

If there had not been such rabid and exaggerated claims of authority with corresponding demands of attention, they wouldn't be in the position of keeping saying "but we got it right now."


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> But how can people not have a healthy dose of skepticism when there keeps being reexaminations when the modeling keeps having to be "readjusted" to explain why it didn't match what really happened? It smacks of "ignore the man behind the screen" to keep in my movie analogy mode.
> 
> If there had not been such rabid and exaggerated claims of authority with corresponding demands of attention, they wouldn't be in the position of keeping saying "but we got it right now."


You can't expect real data to follow a straight line. Things happen in real life. Scientists learn techniques to know when movement is, or isn't, statistically significant. Without being patient and applying statistics we can all point to fortuitous data to tell any story we want, but that doesn't tell the real story.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You're denying something that's indisputable, since it's measurable. Scientists know precisely how much the oceans rise each year. Of course there are places that are more sensitive than others to sea level rise, but denying it is frivolous. There are islands in the Pacific that are going under water as we speak.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=marshall+islands+water+level+rise


Just my observation that those scientists are wrong! Have you seen this first hand? I have.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Just my observation that those scientists are wrong! Have you seen this first hand? I have.


What do your measurements show?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*We are in 21st Year of Declining Temperatures*


> The most amazing thing is how government is trying to claim there is global warming simply to introduce a carbon-tax. We are entering the 21st year of declining temperatures &#8211; not rising temperatures. This is like the tax on cigarettes when people have began to smoke less, governments cry they are losing revenue so many places are now taxing electronic cigarettes. Governments are also losing tax revenue as cars have become more efficient. Sales of gasoline have declined for cars have pollution controls and get much better gas mileage with more people buying from the internet and driving to the local mall less. The solution to the collapse in tax revenues &#8211; states now are preparing to tax people based upon the miles they drive requiring odometer readings to register cars. It is never about what they pretend to care about &#8211; its is just about new schemes to raise taxes.* Regardless of the truth about global warming, governments need this bogus research to raise taxes.*
> 
> *The Global Warming crowd is the MOST unethical and corrupt group of pretend scientists ever to exist.*


 Yes Yes Yes JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY

http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/35118


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> *The Global Warming crowd is the MOST unethical and corrupt group of pretend scientists ever to exist.*


It might be possible to buy off a few percent of the scientific community, but the rest you have to fool. That means 80-90% of all scientists are fooled -- worldwide. That's not hardly plausible.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You can't expect real data to follow a straight line. Things happen in real life. Scientists learn techniques to know when movement is, or isn't, statistically significant. Without being patient and applying statistics we can all point to fortuitous data to tell any story we want, but that doesn't tell the real story.


Then perhaps scientists should keep their data to themselves until said data is indisputable and provable every time.

Until then, IMO, it's all mere speculation.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

And, in other news, _Salon_ is promoting a "Draft Gore", since they don't care for Ms. Clinton.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

arabian knight said:


> *We are in 21st Year of Declining Temperatures*
> 
> 
> Yes Yes Yes JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY
> ...


 Funny how your headline is a little different than the linked one... well actually the one THEY got the article from , which says 'No SIGNIFICANT warming', not 'declining temperatures'. I guess they think most people won't look past thier paraphrasing. (ie, LYING).
This chart is from your link... pretty much contradicts your post.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Then perhaps scientists should keep their data to themselves until said data is indisputable and provable every time.
> 
> Until then, IMO, it's all mere speculation.


That's my point. They HAVE waited until they're sure.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You can't expect real data to follow a straight line. Things happen in real life. Scientists learn techniques to know when movement is, or isn't, statistically significant. Without being patient and applying statistics we can all point to fortuitous data to tell any story we want, but that doesn't tell the real story.


The point of having a "model" is that it predicted what actually turns out to happen. Inaccurate prediction equals inaccurate model. Data is what actually happens- presuming that it is even measured correctly. 
It is possible to question the data accuracy. But if the methodology of data collection is not questionable and still the model comes up with a different expected result then there can only be one way to look at it- the model is not reliable.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

where I want to said:


> The point of having a "model" is that it predicted what actually turns out to happen. Inaccurate prediction equals inaccurate model. Data is what actually happens- presuming that it is even measured correctly.
> It is possible to question the data accuracy. But if the methodology of data collection is not questionable and still the model comes up with a different expected result then there can only be one way to look at it- *the model is not reliable.*


But don't let that get in the way of an elite who knowing or unknowingly will perpetuate an economic disaster for families.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> But don't let that get in the way of an elite who knowing or unknowingly will perpetuate an economic disaster for families.


One of the troubles is that people are so invested in their positions they claim much more than is reasonable and, since their position is much more vunerable than they can tolerate, they attack brutally any questioning.
It is an attractive idea- simple and intuitive- that a huge increase of atmosphere carbon would do just what they say- warm the planet. There are examples of this, sort of anyway, in our solar system. And it fits with the current American spirit criticizing and blaming preceeding generations from the lofty heights of technical innovation that has not yet been proven wrong.
The fact that it is so attractive is one big reason to question it. It is too easy to rationalize discrepancies and dismiss complexities. The whole thing seems to be all nagging and carping and darn little inventing.
And I'm still not sure that, even if it is correct, and everyone in the world wanted to comply with drastic measures, that they would be able to do actually do it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We seem to lose sight of the fact that the oceans have risen over 400' since the end of the last ice age when the glaciers melted and retreated. The ground is still rebounding in some areas of the world. How do we know the factors that ended the last ice age are no longer relevant?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What do your measurements show?


Nothing, absolutely nothing! Why, because it's not rising here! That is a family observation from almost a century of ownership.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Nothing, absolutely nothing! Why, because it's not rising here! That is a family observation from almost a century of ownership.


Evidently you're not measuring it right. The entire ocean is rising. Your property may not be sensitive to small changes in sea level, but it's still happening.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

In some parts of the world where the land is still rising following removal of the weight of the ice cap, areas that were previously on the coast are now inland.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Evidently you're not measuring it right. The entire ocean is rising. Your property may not be sensitive to small changes in sea level, but it's still happening.


Not that I can see!! Just saying!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Evidently you're not measuring it right..


 Apparently he can't see it rising from his window, so it ain't happening. Despite the long-term measurements that say otherwise... ah it must be nice to be so unaware and unconcerned.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> In some parts of the world where the land is still rising following removal of the weight of the ice cap, areas that were previously on the coast are now inland.


 And yet tidal gauges and satellite measurements still show a rising sea. Accelerating, even.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Darren said:


> We seem to lose sight of the fact that the oceans have risen over 400' since the end of the last ice age when the glaciers melted and retreated. The ground is still rebounding in some areas of the world. How do we know the factors that ended the last ice age are no longer relevant?


Maybe ol' Mother Earth wants to fill some of the vast areas that used to be under water. Then there were all those glaciers that melted eons ago-how did man cause that?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Then there were all those glaciers that melted eons ago-how did man cause that?


 Of course mankind had nothing to do with that, so toss the worn out strawman argument. Heres some reading material. Not hype, not political, just good old observations about the world. Perhaps this will answer some of your questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

As I once heard, "When nt doubt, scream and shout." The EPA has a problem. Commence running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Don't forget to scream. You'll be graded, EPA. 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ueless-about-any-obama-climate-plan-benefits/

It's old. But it's relevant.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Apparently he can't see it rising from his window, so it ain't happening. Despite the long-term measurements that say otherwise... ah it must be nice to be so unaware and unconcerned.


I am aware of my surroundings and I am concerned that so many of my fellow Americans can't see the horrible science being put forth as credible.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

JeffreyD said:


> I am aware of my surroundings and I am concerned that so many of my fellow Americans can't see the horrible science being put forth as credible.


Relax, Jeffrey. Most Americans have seen through the scam. There's no majority support for it in this country.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Darren said:


> Relax, Jeffrey. Most Americans have seen through the scam. There's no majority support for it in this country.


But what if, though defective and arrogant, it is right? What if the effects of human carbon emission will cause a massive die off of people? What if? 
I doubt that any real change would be politically or technically possible if it is true. 
People simply take a lot of provender and space. They dislike to be cold or hungry or bored. They want more, especially those that feel that others should provide that more without bothering them.
I think that work shoukd be the natural limiter of consumption. There are few willing to work hard for what they have so that stopping providing goods to the nonworkingor at least making the goods directly in line with the work effort is the only effective limit on consumption. 
But that is a totally unpalatable idea to the same folks who like to rag on consumerism and it's ugly effects on the environment. They want everyone to share in the bounty of work, whether they participate or not in the work, but they want the workers to work harder so as to not taper off the giving to others all the while they want the earth to be undistrubed by work. Just can't be done. Something has to give out.......


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Darren said:


> Relax, Jeffrey. Most Americans have seen through the scam. There's no majority support for it in this country.


Now days that is no great comfort ,the meaning of many things have been changed in a short time and forced on us by a few judges ,not even elected . :flame: Be afraid very afraid ,when they program your smart meter to only give you a hour of electric a day in the name of climate change ,don't act surprised:sing:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I just can't get around the fact that sea level is rising. It's measurable. We know that's because the polar ice caps are melting.


ound:ound:ound:
*Myth of Arctic meltdown: Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now*



> To put it another way, an area the size of Alaska, Americaâs biggest state, *was open water two years ago, but is again now covered by ice.*
> The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html#ixzz3geqFmfQz


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Darren said:


> Relax, Jeffrey. Most Americans have seen through the scam. There's no majority support for it in this country.


That's sort of but not totally correct. The most recent polls indicate that 70% of Americans do believe rapid climate change is now happening but that something like 60% of those who believe it also believe that it won't effect them personally. So in that sense you're correct that there's no majority support since so many Americans think it won't effect them on a personal level.

But in the long run is any of that important? On a global scale does it really matter if Americans do or don't believe that it's happening or if they support it? 

America is only 1 nation out of a total of 194. The majority of the world's nations do recognize climate change and the effects it's already having on their nations. Their people do recognize that it already is or will be effecting them personally. I doubt any of them will care about the opinions or personal effect on American denialists if they decide they have to start boycotting and cutting America off for their own self preservation.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Ice conditions not seen for two decades? 

"Contrary to predictions made earlier this year, Leclair said, the sea ice in the bay has not been melting."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north...resupply-of-iqaluit-east-hudson-bay-1.3161723


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

If you don't understand the difference between sea ice and polar ice, it's easy to be fooled.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Are you saying that sea ice isn't affected by global warming? Seems odd to have to use an icebreaker if it wasn't frozen.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

I'm saying sea ice isn't what we are concerned about.

Sea ice is the ice that predictably freezes and unfreezes every year. It does not contribute to overall sea rise, because it's not ice that's been sequestered for nearly 34 million years. It comes and goes. You'll note that whenever you read these reports about how there is more ice than ever before, they're always referring to sea ice. It's meant to mislead you, and it has.

Polar ice is different. It's what makes up the polar ice caps at the North and South poles. It is the polar ice that is disappearing, and since it has been sequestered at the poles for that nearly 34 million years, it is what contributes to sea rise. A very real and measurable concern.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And many articles are NOT talking about Sea Ice. But the Ice Caps Growing, not shrinking.


> The Southern Hemisphere polar ice cap for the month of April 2014 surpassed its greatest April extent in recorded history*. The new record extends a long-term expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet *that defies alarmist claims that global warming is or should be melting the polar ice caps.


http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/05/15/someone-tell-record-polar-ice-cap-it-should-be-melting


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Your "source" is the Heartland Institute. Koch Brothers. Fossil fuel industry. Sorry; cuts no ice with me (har!), since they have a vested interest in persuading you to think everything is fine and fossil fuels are not a problem.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

If ALL the polar ice on Greenland melted, how much would the sea levels rise? On average, most scientists agree they would rise around 20 feet. And it will take centur*ies* for that to happen. Even the IPCC's report only shows sea levels rising anywhere from 6" to 2' over the next century. All lot can happen to change that number, including a natural reversal in warming trends.

At the same time, the Antarctic polar ice is not anticipated to melt & is considered relatively stable.

Algore's claim that the sea levels will rise 20' "in the near future" is nothing but pure fear-mongering. Your great-grandchildren will be dead from old age by the time that happens.......if it happens at all.

ETA: melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels. If you have a glass of water with ice in it, does the water level rise as the ice melts?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Yep, sure looks like it's going slow.

_"German researchers have established the height of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps with greater precision than ever before. The new maps they have produced show that the ice is melting at an unprecedented rate._

_"The maps, produced with a satellite-mounted instrument, have elevation accuracies to within a few metres. Since Greenlandâs ice cap is more than 2,000 metres thick on average, and the Antarctic bedrock supports 61% of the planetâs fresh water, this means that scientists can make more accurate assessments of annual melting."_

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-polar-ice-caps-melting-at-unprecedented-rate


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

If the polar ice caps all melt and sea ice all melts it will certainly raise sea level, but raised sea level will be the very least of people's troubles.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> ETA: melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels. If you have a glass of water with ice in it, does the water level rise as the ice melts?


A more appropriate analogy would be what would happen if you added ice (or more correctly water as melted ice is water) to an already filled glass. It over flows. Polar ice is water held out of the sea.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> Algore's claim that the sea levels will rise 20' "in the near future" is nothing but pure fear-mongering.


We won't see 20 feet, but I expect to see a few inches.



Txsteader said:


> Your great-grandchildren will be dead from old age by the time that happens.......if it happens at all.


I don't find the suggestion that we'll be long gone before the backlash to be a compelling argument to continue bad environmental policy. We should leave the earth better than we found it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> ETA: melting sea ice does not contribute to rising sea levels. If you have a glass of water with ice in it, does the water level rise as the ice melts?


Again, do not confuse sea ice with polar ice. Different things.

Sea ice is analogous to ice melting in your glass. It's the same amount whether in ice form or in liquid form.

Polar ice is analogous to adding more ice to the glass. As *where I want to* points out, that causes the rise in sea levels as more water or ice is added. And as *Fennick* points out, it will be the least of our concerns.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Raeven said:


> Again, do not confuse sea ice with polar ice. Different things.
> 
> Sea ice is analogous to ice melting in your glass. It's the same amount whether in ice form or in liquid form.
> 
> Polar ice is analogous to adding more ice to the glass. As *where I want to* points out, that causes the rise in sea levels as more water or ice is added. And as *Fennick* points out, it will be the least of our concerns.


Presenting technical points isn't going to help convince them. They simply don't believe it, even with a simple analogy.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Nevada said:


> Presenting technical points isn't going to help convince them. They simply don't believe it, even with a simple analogy.


I know. 

It's not them I'm talking to. Others are open to learning.

It's going to be more than a few inches, by the way. More like a couple of meters. Doesn't seem like much, but it is significant.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Raeven said:


> It's going to be more than a few inches, by the way. More like a couple of meters. Doesn't seem like much, but it is significant.


I mean that I expect to see, myself, a few inches during my lifetime. A matter of feet will eventually happen, but I don't expect to see it.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I mean that I expect to see, myself, a few inches during my lifetime. A matter of feet will eventually happen, but I don't expect to see it.


Ahh, I got ya. It's happening fast enough you might be sadly surprised.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Again, do not confuse sea ice with polar ice. Different things.
> 
> Sea ice is analogous to ice melting in your glass. It's the same amount whether in ice form or in liquid form.
> 
> Polar ice is analogous to adding more ice to the glass. As *where I want to* points out, that causes the rise in sea levels as more water or ice is added. And as *Fennick* points out, it will be the least of our concerns.


Yes, I know. That's why I specifically referred to sea ice.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Yes, I know. That's why I specifically referred to sea ice.


Except the problem is with *polar* ice. Ignore it if you want to, but that's what causes sea rise.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Except the problem is with *polar* ice. Ignore it if you want to, but that's what causes sea rise.


Where did I ignore it? Did you read my entire post? I referred to *polar* ice in the first part, *sea* ice in the latter.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Where did I ignore it? Did you read my entire post? I referred to *polar* ice in the first part, *sea* ice in the latter.


I read your post. You made a bunch of inaccurate assertions about polar ice with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You'll note that my cite includes evidence of unprecedented *polar* ice melt of both Greenland and Antarctica. Refute the cite, if you can. I will read it if not promulgated by the fossil fuels industry. Your unfounded statements fall under the category of 'opinion only' and are accorded the weight to which they are entitled -- meaning none.

Then you went on to state that melting and refreezing sea ice will not to contribute to sea rise. That's obvious and true. But again, you've said nothing that addresses the fact that *polar* ice is melting at an unprecedented rate and is contributing to rapid sea rise.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Polar ice had advanced and retreated many times in the history of the earth. So?

If man cannot adapt he will die. What is wrong with that?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> Polar ice had advanced and retreated many times in the history of the earth. So?
> 
> If man cannot adapt he will die. What is wrong with that?


No skin off my hiney. I don't have kids. I don't think I could look them in the eye if I did, however. 

I agree with Nevada. We should leave our Earth better than we found it. And we surely have not done that.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Raeven said:


> I read your post. You made a bunch of inaccurate assertions about polar ice with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You'll note that my cite includes evidence of unprecedented *polar* ice melt of both Greenland and Antarctica. Refute the cite, if you can. I will read it if not promulgated by the fossil fuels industry. Your unfounded statements fall under the category of 'opinion only' and are accorded the weight to which they are entitled -- meaning none.
> 
> Then you went on to state that melting and refreezing sea ice will not to contribute to sea rise. That's obvious and true. But again, you've said nothing that addresses the fact that *polar* ice is melting at an unprecedented rate and is contributing to rapid sea rise.


Methinks you protest too much....to the point of frenzy.

Y'all are disputing the IPCC's predictions now, so would it really matter who my source was? No doubt you'd dispute it as well, so why bother. 

One must ask.......who _is_ the undisputed source of information these days, since the IPCC is soooo yesterday?

I am entitled to my opinion.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> I am entitled to my opinion.


Of course you are.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

So I have to ask; who is the main source of AGW information these days? Is there some type of clearninghouse that sorts through the data, making sure there are no conflicts?

Or do proponents simply believe the latest study with the most alarming numbers and dire predictions?

Because I gotta say, that's exactly how it looks from out here in Skepticville.

ETA: that's a genuine question re: the main source. Ya never know, I might be convinced.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Well.....I guess it's a secret.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Txsteader said:


> So I have to ask; who is the main source of AGW information these days? .....


Are you asking who is the main source of information from America only, or are you asking about the main sources of information on a global level?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Probably the World Meteorological Organization based in Switzerland. 

This is their home page link: https://www.wmo.int/pages/about/index_en.html

Causes of climate change: https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php



> WMO in brief
> 
> The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations. It is the UN system's authoritative voice on the state and behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere, its interaction with the oceans, the climate it produces and the resulting distribution of water resources.
> 
> ...


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Fennick said:


> Probably the World Meteorological Organization
> 
> This is their home page link: https://www.wmo.int/pages/about/index_en.html
> 
> Causes of climate change: https://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/causes_of_climate_change.php


Thanks for posting that.

But see, that's where part of the skepticism comes from. Raeven is essentially contradicting the IPCC (who is also UN-based) numbers I posted earlier. 

Is UN data outdated? Apparently their information doesn't reflect the numbers of the German study.

So, who's numbers are to be trusted?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Txsteader said:


> Well.....I guess it's a secret.


Sorry; missed your question.

I take my information from a huge variety of sources. You'll note the cite I gave in response to Arabian Knight was based on German studies specific to polar ice. I'll look at anything from everywhere and research it down to the ground to determine if it is credible, meaning whether it has been falsified. I find American resources to be the most unreliable except those coming from NOAA and NASA.

Climate change studies are coming from everywhere: Geologic, biologic, meteorologic, oceanographic. You need to be willing to study them all to have a true picture of what's happening.

*All* scientific studies must be subject to falsifiability, meaning anyone and everyone who cares to take a shot can try to prove them wrong. Those that remain standing despite the best efforts of peers to disprove them become accepted scientific theories -- meaning they are facts for scientific purposes unless or until something comes along to prove them wrong. That rarely happens.

If you are truly willing to see what is happening with respect to climate change, look at *every* article you read with a critical eye. Some will withstand a thorough examination. Some will not. You'll soon see a pattern about which do not, and after you've been down that rabbit hole about a thousand times, you'll stop lending credibility to anything those sources say.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Txsteader said:


> Thanks for posting that.
> 
> But see, that's where part of the skepticism comes from. Raeven is essentially contradicting the IPCC (who is also UN-based) numbers I posted earlier.
> 
> ...


 

I have to agree with all of Raeven's post, especially her point that it's important to study as huge a variety of sources as possible and always with a critical eye. I also agree that too many of the sources coming out of America are unreliable. Too many of them are somebody citing somebody else's information that is citing somebody else's information, etc. - and by the time you read it the information is totally twisted out of context from what the original information was. Most of them are biased and polarized based on a strictly American political agenda that isn't in keeping with what's actually happening in the rest of the world. And frankly, the rest of the world doesn't care about America's polarized political problems and agendas.

I don't think it's wise to trust any one particular source's information over all others (from any nation) and that with all information from all sources you need to try to detect a bias. If the information found is neutral with no bias, no political or profiteering agenda evident, then I give them some credibility but will still double check against it with other sources to determine all common factors. If I detect any bias from a source they get no credibility from me. If I detect political agenda or favouritism, capitalist and profiteering agenda, ANY kind of name calling or finger pointing, they get no credit from me and are a waste of my time.

I think it's a mistake to always trust other people's numbers or to expect everybody to always understand or interpret numbers the same way as I do or as everyone else does.

Most important for me, and this is because of my several decades working and mentoring as a horticulturist - I regularly check international news reports about events related to weather and climate, geological and oceanic phenomenon happening all over the world. It's a huge mistake to only look at what is happening in one's own location or own country without looking at the big global picture. I've been doing this for over 60 years and it's allowed me to connect the dots, recognize changing climate patterns that are developing globally and locally, and to be able to anticipate how those events will influence future climate patterns in my own localities and neighbouring localities.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Txsteader said:


> do proponents simply believe the latest study with the most alarming numbers and dire predictions?


No, I take new information as it comes. I don't adopt a new belief independent of all other scientific evidence. It's an additive and evolving process.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

"We first noticed a pattern in our ancient DNA studies about 10 years ago, but originally thought that it must relate to short intense cold snaps, known as Heinrich Events," Cooper said. "We developed our new combined climate record to get increased resolution about the timing of climatic events and, as more ancient DNA datasets became available, it became obvious that the association was with the rapid warming events, not the cold snaps. A giveaway is the lack of extinctions during the peak cold event -- the Last Glacial Maximum."

"It is important to recognize that man still played an important role in the disappearance of the major megafauna species," said fellow author Chris Turney from the University of New South Wales. "The abrupt warming of the climate caused massive changes to the environment that set the extinction events in motion, but the rise of humans applied the coup de grÃ¢ce to a population that was already under stress."




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/climate-change-woolly-mammoth-extinction/


About an alleged pre-human carbon global warming extinction.......


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

And if man cannot adapt to the changes coming, hot or cold, he too may perish. So What? 

It is foolish and arrogant of man to think that he is the be-all and end-all of time. So we've just discovered a new, apparently habitable planet with its own sun. Perhaps that one will take some of us if this place gets too hot. With all the billions of stars we know are out there, surely there is one between hot and cold.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

So it seems I'm stupid..


So I guess the next question is;

Who do I bow down to this week?, next week? the week after?

Since the conflicting information and sources keeps changing..

Oh who am I kidding! I won't bow down to all this pseudo science.

You all can claim Global Warming, then change it to Climate Change, simply because your POLITICAL AGENDA wasn't being met.. 
Now you say another Ice Age is coming..
So which is it this time around?

You can't decide whether we will burn up from the heat or freeze from the cold..
But you religious fanatics do know how to solve mans problems just by taxing them more and taking more of what they earn. You claim to "Know what's Best"
So I will say this again.. 
LEAD by example...
Remove yourself from society, give up your petroleum base products, give you your rare mineral base products, such as the very computer you are using now..

Condemn those who use excessive air travel etc.. Oh wait that won't happen, because it's your very own POLITICAL PUNDITS doing the offense..


So until you lead by example, you can take your pseudo science and choke on it..

You expect me to give up something, for a religion I don't believe in. 
YET! You won't give up something for the very religion you do believe in (or claim to at least).


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> You all can claim Global Warming, then change it to Climate Change, simply because your POLITICAL AGENDA wasn't being met..


Global warming is confusing to some because the changes aren't uniform throughout the earth. Some areas are only warm today because they are serviced by warm ocean currents, but those currents can change through global warming. As a result, some areas that will be cut off from warm ocean currents will become cooler. That's not because scientists were mistaken or changed their minds, it's just how it works.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's not because scientists were mistaken or changed their minds, it's just how it works.


So, they never changed when the data didn't pan out? How inflexible of them.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> So, they never changed when the data didn't pan out? How inflexible of them.


You have to verify that experimental data isn't fortuitous. That's not as simple as you might think.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You have to verify that experimental data isn't fortuitous. That's not as simple as you might think.


And that has been my basic point all long- it is not as simply as those who act as if the latest theory, no matter how popularized, is gospel would have it.
It is complicated, fraught with unknowns and full of arrogant, self serving statements. 
People who don't believe everything said have a basis for that non-belief. If it is to be countered, then it should be countered with information, not derision.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

where I want to said:


> And that has been my basic point all long- it is not as simply as those who act as if the latest theory, no matter how popularized, is gospel would have it.
> It is complicated, fraught with unknowns and full of arrogant, self serving statements.
> People who don't believe everything said have a basis for that non-belief. If it is to be countered, then it should be countered with information, not derision.


It's that variation on data that gives conservatives room to argue. It's not statistically significant, but it gives you enough room to argue with a straight face.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> It's that variation on data that gives conservatives room to argue. It's not statistically significant, but it gives you enough room to argue with a straight face.


It's not just conservatives that think that! Far from it! Most of the liberals I know think that a lot of the statistics put forth so far, are bogus. What happens again when the actual data are put into these computer models? Oh, that's right, it doesn't work out like we were told!

What do you call someone who doesn't tell the truth?


----------



## onebizebee (May 12, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> It's not just conservatives that think that! Far from it! Most of the liberals I know think that a lot of the statistics put forth so far, are bogus. What happens again when the actual data are put into these computer models? Oh, that's right, it doesn't work out like we were told!
> 
> What do you call someone who doesn't tell the truth?


 lol Misremembering....


----------

