# 2014 warmest year? Maaaaybe not so much ...



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

This scientist doctor type decided to use SCIENCE instead of POLITICAL ENDS to analyze global warming, or global cooling or climate change or ... what ever they're calling it these days.



> Dr. Roy Spencer is a real problem for global warmists. They can't say he's not a climate scientist, because he is. They can't accuse him of taking oil industry money, because all the funding he's ever received has come from the U.S. government - including his work with NASA, NOAA and the Department of Energy.
> 
> And they can't refute his arguments, because he knows what he's talking about and they don't. So when he comes across their latest nonsense - this time the claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record - he takes aim and destroys the claim in beautiful fashion:
> 
> ...


My favorite pull quote: "Feelings now trump facts."

Source


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Hey, wassa matta w/you? Don't you know this is not up for debate!? Its settled. We have to tax the middle class for this.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I liked the Unicorn farts.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I liked the fact the models completely ignored the fact that water vapor is the overwhelmingly predominant greenhouse gas about which nothing can be done. That should have rendered the scam DRT. Like a zombie, AGW still lurches to and fro among the media. 

Fortunately the majority of people seem to have gotten tired of the chicken little show and moved on to real issues that matter.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I have to laugh at the antics of the purveyors of global warming when so much is still unknown and the latest discoveries point to man's effect as insignificant. At a time when more information has become available about additional planets that may be part of our solar system there's also a theory that the Sun may be part of a binary pair. We really don't know what the solar system encounters during its orbit about the galactic center of our galaxy.

http://www.examiner.com/article/pla...rge-planets-may-orbit-further-out-study-shows

What effect would this have on the climate? since we wouldn't have either weather or climate without the Sun, the potential aspect of another star raises interesting possibilities.

[YOUTUBE]2qSCYEcZrIY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## qtkitty (Apr 17, 2005)

Humans have been actively studying weather on a global level for to short of a period to know how quickly we go towards or away from an ice age. My mom is a science teacher and she believes that it's true that we are going away from an ice age faster aka global warming because of humans pollutants. I know this isn't 100% true. Natural events also release "toxins" into nature, such as volcanoes, earthquakes, forest fires, even erosion. They can release natural gases, oils, ect that humans are using to pollute. I wouldn't say humans should have a trash the earth card, but neither are we the single handed reason the world is "dying". Nature releases bad and good things and reclaims them in a cycle, just as species have come and gone.

We can determine hypothesis about the past based on educated guesses from glaciers rock and dirt, but we can't say well in this 100 years it warmed faster or slower. 

Yellowstone erupting would be a more dire catastrophic event in the coming future globally than global warming, but that doesn't seem to have the hot button that global warming does. If Yellowstone would erupt the US especially would be in big trouble.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Anytime a serious problem can be solved by government control and taxes the real issue is government control and taxes.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

qtkitty said:


> ...... *Yellowstone erupting* would be a more dire catastrophic event in the coming future globally than global warming, but *that doesn't seem to have the hot button that global warming does*. If Yellowstone would erupt the US especially would be in big trouble.


You know why that is? It's because at this point in time there's not a single thing anyone can do about Yellowstone except be patient and take a fatalistic wait and see attitude. So there's no point in making it a hot button issue and getting twisted knickers about it. 

But man-made pollution, well that's a hot button issue because there are lots of things can be done to put an end to man-made pollution. But a lot of people are coming up with all sorts of lame excuses for not caring and not being responsible about stopping pollution.

People can argue and make all the excuses they can think of so that they can continue to pollute the way they want but the fact is that man-made pollution does contribute to the destruction of many living things and to greenhouse gasses and global warming. More to the point and worse yet, increasing global warming will cause increasing seismic activity and the release of more methane from the Arctic and it will influence Yellowstone and other presently inactive volcanoes to erupt around the world. Because that's what happens when a planet's surface and oceans heats up. Volcanoes go BOOM and the earth shifts everywhere.

Then not only will there be volcanic eruptions going off everywhere there will be methane fires getting lit off because of the eruptions and everything in the atmosphere and on the surface will burn and then get steamed then everything will freeze and everything will be dead and the planet will start all over again without us. And that will be the end of humans.

So it's all cool. If people are intent on committing mass suicide on a full global scale they may as well go out in style and do it with a big explosion.

I'm sure the Devil is laughing and rubbing his hands with glee and anticipation while God will be shaking his head and saying _"thank goodness it's nearly over and good riddance to that last mistake I made called humans". :hysterical:_


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The point is what is pollution? That's where the AGW proponents have confused the issue to their benefit. CO2 is plant food. It's a naturally occurring substance that benefits mankind. Nothing has been shown to correlate an increase of CO2 with warming temperatures. It appears the reverse is true.

My concern is the burden additional regulations place on individuals and families. We'll be the ones ultimately paying for the new power plants and other "improvements" required to limit CO2 release. For some that see greatly increased electricity and heating bills, it will put some in a position of either feeding their families or paying utility bills.

The billions or more likely trillions that it will take to fulfill the requirements can only come from one place, peoples' pockets. From the stand point of social consciousness, implementation of AGW related regulations is unconscionable. 

With all due respect, Paumon, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> Nothing has been shown to correlate an increase of CO2 with warming temperatures. It appears the reverse is true.


That's just not true. They can correlate greenhouse gasses with global warming.

But the earth has a self-regulating mechanism in the CO2-plant life interaction. Plant life will bloom in excess CO2, then the increased plant life can lower atmospheric CO2. But that self-regulating mechanism isn't without limitation. The concern is that we may have overwhelmed that mechanism to the point that it can't correct the imbalance.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

As they say, Nevada the devil's in the details and the details don't show a correlation contrary to what the media and a few grant seekers and exploiters would have you believe.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> As they say, Nevada the devil's in the details and the details don't show a correlation contrary to what the media and a few grant seekers and exploiters would have you believe.


The greenhouse effect can be modeled and demonstrated. To deny the existence of the greenhouse effect is frivolous, and to suggest that there is no correlation between greenhouse gas and climate is simply not true.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ[/ame]


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> As they say, Nevada the devil's in the details and the details don't show a correlation contrary to what the media and a few grant seekers and exploiters would have you believe.


 Sure that is all those so called 'scientists want iOS their Grant Money they don't care if they fake things or not, skew the data, falsify the charts to look like horrible things are happening to this planet that man has only been on in a tick of a second. And even if all the Co2 was stopped right now it would not change anything in a hundred years. This is so much hockey pokey that man has caused what is happening on a natural basis. If it was not so horrible to suck in so many into this new religion it would be funny as heck.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Sure that is all those so called 'scientists want iOS their Grant Money they don't care if they fake things or not, skew the data, falsify the charts to look like horrible things are happening to this planet that man has only been on in a tick of a second.


Well, if you think they faked the data you could repeat the experiment yourself. MythBusters had similar results, although the conditions of the experiment were very different. Still, the results were directionally comparable.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I[/ame]


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> I liked the Unicorn farts.


Didn't you know that was what was causing global warming, them and cows, too much methane. I have a new theory, the dinosaurs went extinct not due to a meteor but all the methane the were blowing out, after all they were big animals, if cows can cause global warming and possible extinction look at what dinosaurs could do.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

> By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen,[1] 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

So a gas that even if doubled is less than 1/10 of 1 percent is going to bake us all away, I find that hard to believe. Global warming is about political agendas not is not scientific. It is interesting that the video never said how much they increased the levels of CO2 or methane in the boxes. Ice cores have even shown that during certain ice ages CO2 levels were even higher than now. As a matter of fact a new paper has been published that shows man's influence on climate is way over stated. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/...-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

See now, this is exactly what I mean. It doesn't take long and a few of you guys have just proven my point so predictably. Coming up with the typical excuses and quibbling about taxed PENNIES (omg, the horror, the horror !! :shocked and pointing fingers at evil-doers trying to take money and luxuries away from you and arguing about governments and science and taxes and CO2 and coming up with all sorts of lame evasions and rhetoric for why you think it should be okay to avoid the issue and to stay spoiled and entitled and pollute and pollute to your heart's content.

It's pollution and acidification no matter how little or severe it is or what its content is or how many pennies you're going to get taxed or whatever luxuries you're afraid of sacrificing and there is NO excuse for choosing to be polluters and poisoners.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Paumon said:


> See now, this is exactly what I mean. It doesn't take long and a few of you guys have just proven my point so predictably. Coming up with the typical excuses and quibbling about taxed PENNIES (omg, the horror, the horror !! :shocked and pointing fingers at evil-doers trying to take money and luxuries away from you and arguing about governments and science and taxes and CO2 and coming up with all sorts of lame evasions and rhetoric for why you think it should be okay to avoid the issue and to stay spoiled and entitled and pollute and pollute to your heart's content.
> 
> It's pollution and acidification no matter how little or severe it is or what its content is or how many pennies you're going to get taxed or whatever luxuries you're afraid of sacrificing and there is NO excuse for choosing to be polluters and poisoners.


Is there pollution, yes is it CO2 and Methane, no. These are natural gases that have been on the planet since it first formed.

You must not have read the article I posted, here it is again.. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/...-mans-influence-on-the-climate-is-negligible/
and what one of the authors has to say about it... http://kingworldnews.com/now-months-away-totalitarian-one-world-government/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

BlackFeather said:


> Is there pollution, yes is it CO2 and Methane, no. These are natural gases that have been on the planet since it first formed.


The argument that CO2 & methane are natural occurring substances is absolutely frivolous. If that argument made sense then oil spills would be ok. Arsenic is a naturally occurring substance, yet we know it can cause problems. Even water is naturally occurring, but we don't like floods.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I liked this section...Nevada should like the first part:



> At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don&#8217;t.
> 
> In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.
> 
> And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

[YOUTUBE] ?v=PGodDOLvBxw&spfreload=10[/YOUTUBE]

*
George Carlin - "The Planet is fine, the people are messed up"~!*

Well messed up is not what he said but if you KNOW George Carlin you KNOW what word he used. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> At least engineers have to prove their ideas work. The widgets and cell phones and cars and jets and bridges they build either work or they don&#8217;t.
> 
> In climate science, whichever side is favored by politicians and journalism graduates is the side that wins.
> 
> And what about those 97% of scientists who agree? Well, what they all agree on is that if their government climate funding goes away, their careers will end.


I appreciate your confidence in my engineering credentials, but I have more respect for scientists than that.

There is a fundamental difference between engineering and pure science, and that's technical registration. In other words, engineers are generally licensed while scientists generally aren't. Some chemists register so their results and opinions are taken at face value, while some corporate engineers don't register to protect their employers. But in general, engineers do and scientists don't.

But in some jurisdictions meteorologists register.

http://www.rmets.org/our-activities/professional-accreditation/registered-meteorologist-rmet-0

I think you have no idea what kind of scrutiny technical papers come under. It's not a session of back-slapping cronies agreeing with each other. Technical review is severe enough that some scientists aren't up to submitting papers when they should. If you understood that process you wouldn't suggest what you do.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I appreciate your confidence in my engineering credentials, but I have more respect for scientists than that.
> 
> There is a fundamental difference between engineering and pure science, and that's technical registration. In other words, engineers are generally licensed while scientists generally aren't. Some chemists register so their results and opinions are taken at face value, while some corporate engineers don't register to protect their employers. But in general, engineers do and scientists don't.
> 
> ...


What you quoted as my words were NOT my words. They were the words of the CLIMATE SCIENTIST that I quoted. If you can't even figure that out, you're not qualified to discuss science.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> What you quoted as my words were NOT my words. They were the words of the SCIENTIST that I quoted.


I know, but since you quoted it I just assumed that you agreed with it.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

BlackFeather said:


> Didn't you know that was what was causing global warming, them and cows, too much methane. I have a new theory, the dinosaurs went extinct not due to a meteor but all the methane the were blowing out, after all they were big animals, if cows can cause global warming and possible extinction look at what dinosaurs could do.


I'm a big guy and I eat a lot of fruit and raw vegetables. You ought t o see what I can do.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I know, but since you quoted it I just assumed that you agreed with it.


I don't think you did know, since you lectured me (and threw in a lot of irrelevant BS) about what *I* was suggesting. I suggested absolutely nothing. I simply posted a quote from a NASA climate scientist. I did like what he said, but as I am not a climate scientist who deals with the government funding debacle, I don't know one way or the other if it's entirely true. The part about engineers certainly is...you spec crap that doesn't work, you're going to have a short career. Either way, he is infinitely more qualified to talk on the subject than you are.

BTW, as I have reminded you many times, you're NOT the only "scientist" here. Some of us are actually better educated than you are. What happened to that memory of yours you were bragging about a couple days ago?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> The part about engineers certainly is...you spec crap that doesn't work, you're going to have a short career.


Yes, but the same is true for scientists. For example, industry hires chemists to solve problems and develop new products. The idea is that having product development guides by science is going to be better than chance. It works, and if it didn't work industry wouldn't use scientists.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> Yes, but the same is true for scientists.


So show me all the claims about climate change in a lab...and no, a video of Myth Busters doesn't qualify.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*New Cartoon Brilliantly Illustrates Why the Science of Man-Made Climate Change is a Scam*









http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/political-cartoon/new-cartoon-brilliantly-illustrates-why-the-science-of-man-made-climate-change-is-a-scam


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> So show me all the claims about climate change in a lab...and no, a video of Myth Busters doesn't qualify.


I showed you another clip of a lab experiment. You didn't like that one either?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I showed you another clip of a lab experiment. You didn't like that one either?


I liked it, but it didn't demonstrate much...only a very small piece of the puzzle that is not even in dispute among most reasonable people...and even that fun experiment required extreme variation to produce the desired results. The concentration of CO2 in the bottle was likely very high, not just a tiny increase like we see in our atmosphere.

I asked for demonstration of all the claims. You gave a demonstration of one claim which isn't even part of the debate.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I liked it, but it didn't demonstrate much...only a very small piece of the puzzle that is not even in dispute among most reasonable people...and even that fun experiment required extreme variation to produce the desired results. The concentration of CO2 in the bottle was likely very high, not just a tiny increase like we see in our atmosphere.


Yes, and that's why the MythBuster experiment was more realistic. But the results are still directional. For demonstration purposes they'll always need to use a lot more CO2 because the temperature rise is easily measured. Subtle changes, like are happening to the earth, would be difficult to measure in the lab and take a lot of time.

But from the experiment you can't really deny that CO2 traps more heat than air. It's logical the the more CO2 is in the air the more heat will be trapped.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Sure that is all those so called 'scientists want iOS their Grant Money they don't care if they fake things or not, skew the data, falsify the charts to look like horrible things are happening to this planet that man has only been on in a tick of a second. And even if all the Co2 was stopped right now it would not change anything in a hundred years. This is so much hockey pokey that man has caused what is happening on a natural basis. If it was not so horrible to suck in so many into this new religion it would be funny as heck.


If the earth isn't warming then how do you explain the sea level rising? That's not something that's up for debate because it's so easily measured. It's what we call a fact.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yes, and that's why the MythBuster experiment was more realistic. But the results are still directional. For demonstration purposes they'll always need to use a lot more CO2 because the temperature rise is easily measured. Subtle changes, like are happening to the earth, would be difficult to measure in the lab and take a lot of time.


True. And the difficulty in measuring temperature plays a HUGE role in the real world, since the real world is not a lab and includes a LOT more variables. That is largely the topic of this thread. There's a lot of hype about 2014 being the hottest year ever, when the difference between it and the previous "record" is a fraction of the margin of error. Even NASA admits that they're only 38% sure about it...pretty weak to trumpet it as fact.



> But from the experiment you can't really deny that CO2 traps more heat than air. It's logical the the more CO2 is in the air the more heat will be trapped.


Yeah, only dummies deny that...which is why it's not part of the real debate...only non-science rhetoric.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Yeah, only dummies deny that...which is why it's not part of the real debate...only non-science rhetoric.


So you admit that greenhouse gases trap more heat than air, but you don't believe that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap more heat? How does that work?

Actually, the concept of greenhouse gases trapping more heat is highly scientific. Can you explain why greenhouse gases trap more heat than air, and how you might predict how much more heat might be trapped by a particular gas?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> So you admit that greenhouse gases trap more heat than air, *but you don't believe that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap more heat?* How does that work?


Wrong. Where did you get that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Wrong. Where did you get that?


Then what exactly is it that you don't believe?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

I pretty much ignore any 'hype' about record breaking years... the differences are pretty minor. Still, the most likely scenario is temperatures will continue to slowly rise as CO2 continues to rise.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Still, the most likely scenario is temperatures will continue to slowly rise as CO2 continues to rise.


That's an absolute certainty. The question is how to slow the increase in CO2, and how can we soften the impact of the result of warming.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Then what exactly is it that you don't believe?


There are lots of things I don't believe. I assume you mean about climate science. I am not qualified in that discipline, so I neither believe nor disbelieve much about it. But I will throw you a bone to chew on, since you seem to be looking for an argument...I don't believe the science is as settled as claimed.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's an absolute certainty. The question is how to slow the increase in CO2, and how can we soften the impact of the result of warming.


Why do I feel like the answer to that is more cost for the middle class paid directly to the power brokers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> I don't believe the science is as settled as claimed.


That's out of the same playbook as was used for intelligent design. The strategy is to convince people that there is a realistic debate within the scientific community when there is none. But consensus is on the level of 98% agreement. While we shouldn't accept a scientific principle solely on the basis of popular vote, the fact is that *there is no realistic debate within the scientific community about either global warming or intelligent design.*


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's out of the same playbook as was used for intelligent design. The strategy is to convince people that there is a realistic debate within the scientific community when there is none. But consensus is on the level of 98% agreement. While we shouldn't accept a scientific principle solely on the basis of popular vote, the fact is that *there is no realistic debate within the scientific community about either global warming or intelligent design.*


You repeating it doesn't make it so. And it's not a play. I don't follow anyone's playbook. It's my own opinion based on my own scientific training...while not in the field of climatology, it's enough to see flaws.

Nice to try to distract from the topic by bringing up something completely unrelated, though. I couldn't care less about intelligent design and I won't follow that rabbit trail. Seriously, what is wrong with your memory?

I'm checking out now...it's pointless to try to discuss anything with you when you just want to argue and you think just saying the same thing over and over again is the same as proving your point. Time to smoke a cigar and drink a nice bourbon to prepare for the state of the union speech.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Why do I feel like the answer to that is more cost for the middle class paid directly to the power brokers.


Because you're more concerned with who's going to pay for it than the realistic dangers involved. So let me ask you this, if global warming changes the water flow patterns of the Colorado River enough to make Las Vegas a ghost town, resulting in my house becoming worthless, who's going to compensate me for that?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Because you're more concerned with who's going to pay for it than the realistic dangers involved. So let me ask you this, if global warming changes the water flow patterns of the Colorado River enough to make Las Vegas a ghost town, resulting in my house becoming worthless, who's going to compensate me for that?


Sorry I gave up fairy tales and scary stories some time ago. As to your compensation I'm sure you would be able to find someone to sue. :nanner:

The whole thing is little more than maybe, what if and quite a bit of scare tactics. So far it seems most of their evidence proves very little is happening, if anything at all. 

I wouldn't buy any stock in the climate scare type businesses if I are you. :happy2:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because you're more concerned with who's going to pay for it than the realistic dangers involved. So let me ask you this, if global warming changes the water flow patterns of the Colorado River enough to make Las Vegas a ghost town, resulting in my house becoming worthless, who's going to compensate me for that?


No one! It was your choice to stay there when you know what is coming. Isn't it?

Why do you feel you should be compensated for your poor decisions? And who is going to compensate you, the taxpayers? You can't really believe that they would owe you for your mistake?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Sorry I gave up fairy tales and scary stories some time ago.


Yeah, but when I see a bathtub ring that's over 120 feet high in Lake Mead, I can't help but wonder how long the water supply is going to hold out.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, but when I see a bathtub ring that's over 120 feet high in Lake Mead, I can't help but wonder how long the water supply is going to hold out.


Yep, that probably means to many people using the water. Maybe they should move to a more viable location.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> No one! It was your choice to stay there when you know what is coming. Isn't it?
> 
> Why do you feel you should be compensated for your poor decisions? And who is going to compensate you, the taxpayers? You can't really believe that they would owe you for your mistake?


I'm not the only one. Most of Miami is also going to be under water if something isn't done. They made poor choices also?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Yep, that probably means to many people using the water. Maybe they should move to a more viable location.


But you see, a scientist wouldn't make that assumption on face value. There is also the variable how how much water the Colorado River delivered. The fact is that the water consumption was more or less constant, but flow from the river has been much lower.

It's the result if changing weather patterns in the Colorado mountains, where there's a lot less snow pack than normal. Las Vegas' water supply is all about how much snow they get in Colorado.

But the point is that the climate change issue is not hypothetical to me.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Everybody needs something to make themselves feel useful. Right now we have a nice big fire going some steaks and a few beers, plus a sky full of stars to look at. Life is good and will go on with or without man.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Nevada said:


> That's an absolute certainty. The question is how to slow the increase in CO2, and how can we soften the impact of the result of warming.


 I don't believe we're going to slow the increase in CO2 to any significant degree. Burning fossil fuels is just far too entrenched in our civilization, in this era of history.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

no really said:


> Why do I feel like the answer to that is more cost for the middle class paid directly to the power brokers.


 That is pretty much a given, no matter what happens. And it has nothing to do with global warming.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I'm not the only one. Most of Miami is also going to be under water if something isn't done. They made poor choices also?


It appears so! I have a house at the beach, I haven't noticed any increase in sea levels. And that's over the last 40 years!

Since you know for a fact that your water will eventually run out, why would you even think about staying? That's insane!

Remember, we produce less Co2 than we consume. At least according to the government data. Remember also that this report was refuted by the climate scientists that run the satellites!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I'm not the only one. Most of Miami is also going to be under water if something isn't done. They made poor choices also?


 Yes. If someone chooses to live in a city just a few feet above sea level, its not the rest of the worlds job to make that place habitable. People have been moving since the dawn of time. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

no really said:


> Sorry I gave up fairy tales and scary stories some time ago. As to your compensation I'm sure you would be able to find someone to sue. :nanner:
> 
> The whole thing is little more than maybe, what if and quite a bit of scare tactics. So far it seems most of their evidence proves very little is happening, if anything at all.
> 
> I wouldn't buy any stock in the climate scare type businesses if I are you. :happy2:


 Yeah, I gave up fairy tales too. Especially ones that say you can continually add CO2,a potent greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere and have 'not much if anything happen'. That is simply a fairy-tale of the unconcerned, and frankly, uneducated sort, unsupported by hundreds of years of hard-won chemical and atmospheric knowledge.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> Yes. If someone chooses to live in a city just a few feet above sea level, its not the rest of the worlds job to make that place habitable. People have been moving since the dawn of time. Sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity.


The problem I have with that is some polluting industries are taking a benefit at the expense of others. If this was the result of a natural shift in climate conditions then it would be different, but this is a deliberate attempt by certain industries to maximize short term profits and the expense of people who happen to live in vulnerable areas. The either should not be allowed to create these problems in the first place, or they should be required to pay for the damage when it happens.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

greg273 said:


> I don't believe we're going to slow the increase in CO2 to any significant degree. Burning fossil fuels is just far too entrenched in our civilization, in this era of history.


To a large extent it's happening in it's own. Fuel demand in the US has dropped significantly over the past decade. Cars get better mileage, our driving habits have changed, and we're a lot better at commuting together.

Moreover, I believe that we'll transition to alternative fuels in the future, probably electricity. The trend of using less fossil fuel will continue for our lifetimes. But we also need industry to follow suit.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with that is some polluting industries are taking a benefit at the expense of others. If this was the result of a natural shift in climate conditions then it would be different, but this is a deliberate attempt by certain industries to maximize short term profits and the expense of people who happen to live in vulnerable areas. The either should not be allowed to create these problems in the first place, or they should be required to pay for the damage when it happens.


 That goes for the city you liv in. QUIT building period.
Quit building malls with so much heat sinks that create a Heat Island.
I have seen storms Split just as they come up from there South and Go Right Around the metro area of PHX.
In your own words make them PAY for Mistakes. Mistakes by building a major city is the flipping Desert~! Tax tax tax. Ya put all cities in the poor house that have changed the local climate which affects the over all weather.
Your own words pools have raised the humidity Sure it has even in AZ it has. What do you think it would do when building a metropolitan city in the desert?
How many people are using the water form the Colorado River?

MILLIONS So much so it no longer reaches its delta or the sea.
Yes lets blame the CO2 for not filling up Lake Mead. When it FACT water is being used at a rapid rate so it CAN'T refill itself. Quit looking back when the water was high. Population was less, WAY less taking the water OUT OF the river. It once filled all the way to the ocean it sure as heck don't now because of PEOPLE using it UP. Not the CO2 level.
It ISN'T Global Warming making the water low it is PEOPLE using that water at a much higher rate then EVER~!!!!!!


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Here's what "Lake Mead" looked like before humans messed it up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Yes lets blame the CO2 for not filling up Lake Mead. When it FACT water is being used at a rapid rate so it CAN'T refill itself. Quit looking back when the water was high. Population was less, WAY less taking the water OUT OF the river. It once filled all the way to the ocean it sure as heck don't now because of PEOPLE using it UP. Not the CO2 level.
> It ISN'T Global Warming making the water low it is PEOPLE using that water at a much higher rate then EVER~!!!!!!


You really don't understand that the Colorado River is producing less? I think you're just being obtuse.

But if climate patterns don't change soon I suspect that cutting back California & Arizona might be part of the answer. We'll see how it goes. It's not looking good for this year so far.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with that is some polluting industries are taking a benefit at the expense of others. If this was the result of a natural shift in climate conditions then it would be different, but this is a deliberate attempt by certain industries to maximize short term profits and the expense of people who happen to live in vulnerable areas. The either should not be allowed to create these problems in the first place, or they should be required to pay for the damage when it happens.


Just curious. Where do you feel the electricity will come from to run your electric cars? Thin air???

Funny thing about the electric car folks. They seem to think the electricity to run their cars does indeed come out of thin air. In reality, we all know where most of the energy source to create that electricity comes from...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmerDale said:


> Just curious. Where do you feel the electricity will come from to run your electric cars? Thin air???
> 
> Funny thing about the electric car folks. They seem to think the electricity to run their cars does indeed come out of thin air. In reality, we all know where most of the energy source to create that electricity comes from...


Making electricity on a commercial scale provides options. First, there are a variety of energy sources that can make electricity. A large power plant can also be situated in a location that lends itself to easy access to bulk shipments and water. In a cases where fossil fuel, such as natural gas, has to be used to make power there are ways to clean emissions that aren't practical for smaller operations. The result is a clean operation producing affordable energy.

Probably the bigger social problem is finding an alternative source for road use taxes when people are charging their cars at home. Currently the tax money comes from a per gallon surcharge.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

farmerDale said:


> Just curious. Where do you feel the electricity will come from to run your electric cars? Thin air???
> 
> Funny thing about the electric car folks. They seem to think the electricity to run their cars does indeed come out of thin air. In reality, we all know where most of the energy source to create that electricity comes from...


 I read some years ago you an SEE the level of the lake vary in height by the amount of power that CA is using. That was years ago I am sure it is more now. The level will go up and down depending how far the gates are opened to Generate more power, and CA uses a LOT~! ANd these electric cars are just a rich persons fantasy they are living out. It is not for the general population at all.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, but when I see a bathtub ring that's over 120 feet high in Lake Mead, I can't help but wonder how long the water supply is going to hold out.


You do realize that this happened in 1955 and 1965. As the saying goes stuff happens


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> You do realize that this happened in 1955 and 1965. As the saying goes stuff happens


It's true that Lake Mead was close to today's level in 1955 & 1965, but you can't really compare those levels directly to today because we're doing things differently now. We send all treated sewage back to Lake Mead, along with all of the city's storm runoff. We weren't doing that in 1955 & 1965.

It's was actually about 5 feet lower than the historical low at one point last year. The critical thing about that it the city's water intake was almost left high & dry. They're racing to construct a new water intake at a lower level to assure that the city isn't without water.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/w...e-drills-3-mile-tunnel-under-lake-mead-photos


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's true that Lake Mead was close to today's level in 1955 & 1965, but you can't really compare those levels directly to today because we're doing things differently now. We send all treated sewage back to Lake Mead, along with all of the city's storm runoff. We weren't doing that in 1955 & 1965.
> 
> It's was actually about 5 feet lower than the historical low at one point last year. The critical thing about that it the city's water intake was almost left high & dry. They're racing to construct a new water intake at a lower level to assure that the city isn't without water.
> 
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/w...e-drills-3-mile-tunnel-under-lake-mead-photos


Of course it's all different, LOL. :happy2:

Looks like Las Vegas bet on status quo, guess they lost. It's a desert with increasing water usage, they might try being proactive. Life lesson.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya and they are even putting in grates that cover water runs in and around the city to return what falls as rain, get it back to the lake.
But gee don't you THINK that should have been done at the Very Beginning when building such a place in the Desert? But nope it is so much easier just to say well man has caused this global warming thing and that is why we have less water now. Ya but keep building those huge casinos, and fountains and FAKE canals so people can spend MONEY.
Yuppers lets just spoil what God gave us here and change into something it never was.
And then wonder why they are running out of water.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The problem I have with that is
> 
> some polluting industries
> 
> are taking a benefit at the expense of others.


See his problem. ?....
He is NOT yet ......he is working on it though
Gettting something he is not willing to pay for himself.
he seems to be be willing to take relocation should water he uses dries up.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> they might try being proactive.


They are being proactive. There's a plan in the works to pipe water from White Pine County (near Ely, maybe 200 miles north), but it's getting political and legal resistance. Not surprisingly, ranchers and native American tribes don't want Las Vegas to drain their water table.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/feb/12/environmental-group/


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> They are being proactive. There's a plan in the works to pipe water from White Pine County (near Ely, maybe 200 miles north), but it's getting political and legal resistance. Not surprisingly, ranchers and native American tribes don't want Las Vegas to drain their water table.
> 
> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/feb/12/environmental-group/


Being proactive usually means being capable of dealing with an emergency situation. Not seeing how there is much proactive in that plan. Lots of wishful thinking and a bit of politics to keep the populace calm.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

As often happens, Nevada has completely derailed a thread by making it all about him. Getting back to the original topic...was 2014 the hottest year ever?


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

jtbrandt said:


> As often happens, Nevada has completely derailed a thread by making it all about him. Getting back to the original topic...was 2014 the hottest year ever?


They are 38% sure it might have been... talk about credibility...:nanner:

If it was the hottest year, I must have been way too preoccupied to notice... buying heating oil, splitting firewood, building an outdoor furnace, etc.

Matt


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

38% is sure enough for Obama to repeat the claim as fact in his speech last night...that right there is enough to make me doubt it.

I like to be at least 80% sure of things before I state them as fact, and even then I usually leave a little wiggle room in case I'm wrong.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> As often happens, Nevada has completely derailed a thread by making it all about him. Getting back to the original topic...was 2014 the hottest year ever?


OK. The next time a conservative asks me a question I'll reply that I don't want to answer for concern that an answer might cause thread drift. Fair enough?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> OK. The next time a conservative asks me a question I'll reply that I don't want to answer for concern that an answer might cause thread drift. Fair enough?


Sure, if that makes you happy. But I wasn't criticizing thread drift. It was thread hijacking. This thread was not about your water supply in Vegas, but you felt the need to make it all about you and your property value.

Here's your first question from a conservative...was 2014 the hottest year ever? You can't decline to answer on the basis of thread drift because that is the exact topic of the thread.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Here's your first question from a conservative...was 2014 the hottest year ever?


I can't speak globally, but 2014 was the warmest year on record for the State of Nevada, Reno, and Las Vegas. Record keeping began in 1895, so it's possible that there might have been warmer years before 1895.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jan/10/report-2014-was-warmest-year-nevada-1895/


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

jtbrandt said:


> As often happens, Nevada has completely derailed a thread by making it all about him. Getting back to the original topic...was 2014 the hottest year ever?


No. Like, :umno:


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I can't speak globally, but 2014 was the warmest year on record for the State of Nevada, Reno, and Las Vegas. Record keeping began in 1895, so it's possible that there might have been warmer years before 1895.
> 
> http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2015/jan/10/report-2014-was-warmest-year-nevada-1895/


Well we are talking about GLOBAL climate change...even when asked a direct question about the exact topic of the thread, you instead talk about your own area...interesting. I would ask you how confident you are in the numbers there, but I don't want to lead you into more thread drift.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

farmerDale said:


> No. Like, :umno:


I'm only 62% sure it wasn't....

ETA: And for the record, that 62% was a joke...so nobody needs to school me on the math.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> Well we are talking about GLOBAL climate change...even when asked a direct question about the exact topic of the thread, you instead talk about your own area...interesting. I would ask you how confident you are in the numbers there, but I don't want to lead you into more thread drift.


Sorry, but I really don't know. You'll just have to accept that.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Sorry, but I really don't know. You'll just have to accept that.


I do accept it. And honestly, I am happy to hear it. Scientists should say those words a LOT more. I don't know, either. Nothing wrong with not knowing.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Oh yes once again it is about Las Vegas and the state of Nevada.
Ah yes, now look at where those temps were taken, OFFICIALLY.
AT THE AIRPORT~!
Nice HOT TARMAC.
I lived in Phoenix the year it made it to 122Âº. Now that is HOT, but it was a dry heat. LOL
Hottest EVER in an American City.
The temp is always taken at the Airport.
WOW now that makes sense. NOT.
Well a few weeks later on the news they came out and said it won't get THAT hot again~!

WHY, because THEY MOVED the flipping official Temperature reading Station at the Airport and moved it somewhere the HEAT coming off that tarmac would not throw off the TRUE temp~!!!!


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Nevada; I'm afraid that you have been taken in by the political left. Go back and look at the heat records of the last thousand years. We really have no "taken by man" records that go back more than a couple of hundred years, but the records from tree growth and ice cores show that for the past 400 years so so we've been in a mini-ice age. Go back a thousand years, eleven hundred years to the age of the vikings and you could colonize Greenland---

Do you suppose that the Vikings were putting out too much carbon dioxide? 

If we are entering another warm period I'd lay the blame on the sun and Al Gore's methane flatulence. Maybe more so the sun.

When a known and respected, genuine, climatologist puts out a scholarly paper refuting the current fad-speak of the politicians, one which cites studies of others as well as his own, his work merits examination. This fellow is well qualified.

As for Florida going under water, so what is new? Any geologist, any petroleum engineer, will tell you that the ocean once reached inland as far as the hills of N. Louisiana and the Oklahoma border. 

The mountains of Mexico provided much of the West's underground water, but when man uses it faster than nature can replenish it, it will be scarce. Las Vegas was no more than an oasis until the Mob moved in and created a gambling, free, no, paid love and quick divorce hell. Easterners moved in demanding golf courses and swimming pools---where did all that water come from---wonder why LV is no longer an allergy-free heaven with a water problem? 

The fact is that we have always had wet periods and dry periods, hot periods and cold periods. Nature repeats itself--Any number of studies show these cycles, and cycles within cycles. Man simply does not yet know all the answers.

As for the author's comments regarding intelligent design--No one yet has shown how nature came to be. We can all be made from dirt, but who made the dirt? Where is the conflict between evolution and creation? Scientists, more than people of lesser intellect, have difficulty with the unknown.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

He is the political left...and he was a chemical engineer in the oil business also...maybe not what you meant by petroleum engineer.

I am interested in the scholarly paper you referenced. Do you have a link?


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

Oxankle said:


> As for Florida going under water, so what is new? Any geologist, any petroleum engineer, will tell you that the ocean once reached inland as far as the hills of N. Louisiana and the Oklahoma border.


To further your point, you can find sharks teeth here in NC over 100 miles from the shoreline. But who needs facts when they have experts!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> He is the political left...and he was a chemical engineer in the oil business also...maybe not what you meant by petroleum engineer.
> 
> I am interested in the scholarly paper you referenced. Do you have a link?


Hehe....i can't post a link from my phone, but, I believe that the article had statements from the climate scientists that run several satellites. They said that the margins of error fit within the global temperatures extrapolated from the satellite data. So they said no one can say for sure that the warming really happened. I'll find one of the articles when I get home.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

Here is the URL to Spencer's Blog. His article is there. I also found it in another place while looking up Spencer. Jeffrey has it right--the margins of error in the computer calculations cannot distinguish fact from fiction, plus some of the data relied on by the "warmists" are just plain wrong. Heat radiation from the earth back into space is grossly understated.

Other independent articles unrelated to Spencer's have tied fluctuations in earth temperatures to variations in activity on the sun. Probably far more important than even geological or man-caused co2, or even methane. 

There is this one thing that bothers me. Without regard to the cause--man or the sun, if the earth temperature reaches the point where frozen methane in the polar regions and the deep seas, and dissolved co2 in the oceans, boil off, we are probably not going to care how hot it gets. (See Methane Hydrates)

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

I've read his blog. I thought there was something else I hadn't seen. Thanks.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

nchobbyfarm said:


> To further your point, you can find sharks teeth here in NC over 100 miles from the shoreline.


 Which has nothing to do with global warming and industrial civilizations role in it. Sharks have been around long enough to weather many rises and falls in sea level. The continents rise and fall constantly, albeit slowly, as they float around on the molten magma beneath. 
Again, this has ZERO to do with the current situation, in which mankinds actions are directly responsible for the rise in greenhouse gasses.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Oxankle said:


> Here is the URL to Spencer's Blog. His article is there. I also found it in another place while looking up Spencer. Jeffrey has it right--the margins of error in the computer calculations cannot distinguish fact from fiction, plus some of the data relied on by the "warmists" are just plain wrong. Heat radiation from the earth back into space is grossly understated.
> 
> Other independent articles unrelated to Spencer's have tied fluctuations in earth temperatures to variations in activity on the sun. Probably far more important than even geological or man-caused co2, or even methane.
> 
> ...



Your link shows a clear upward trend in temps. The bad part for the global warming deniers is solar activity has been relatively LOWER for the past 30 years, all the while temp has been going up.


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Which has nothing to do with global warming and industrial civilizations role in it. Sharks have been around long enough to weather many rises and falls in sea level. The continents rise and fall constantly, albeit slowly, as they float around on the molten magma beneath.
> Again, this has ZERO to do with the current situation, in which mankinds actions are directly responsible for the rise in greenhouse gasses.


Well, if rising sea levels aren't a problem since it has happened before, that's one less thing for the global warming religion to worry with. Good thing you set me straight!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

About the CO2:

Mankind contributes about eight gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere compared with 210 gigatons from Mother Nature (natural processes) annually. We have a winner and it's Mother Nature by a landslide.

"
Recovery from the Little Ice Age, driven by the sun, is causing the oceans to release CO2. It is temperature driving CO2 release, not the other way around. Just as it has always been.

As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting."

http://notrickszone.com/2013/03/02/...atural-sources/#sthash.9MxW4whG.BXqHm7FE.dpbs


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

I've learned something over the last few years. 

Global warming (and a lot of modern science) is something akin to religion. People either believe or they don't believe. Once entrenched, there's no amount of words that will make them budge ... and furthering discussion will just breed anger (like that of a holy war).

For me the issue is really about the degrading trust that folks have in the scientific community. We're no longer talking through "theories", but rather projecting those theories as fact. It doesn't matter that must science-types believe it, if you can't witness it ... it's still just a theory.

I'm one of those that rolls my eyes at the announcement of a new "discovery". It really is an unfortunate, yet undeniable trend in modern science.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SkizzlePig said:


> It doesn't matter that must science-types believe it, if you can't witness it ... it's still just a theory.


I made a career working with things I couldn't see. I've never seen what causes fouling or entrainment in a distillation tower with my own eyes, but I have an idea what causes it so I know what to do about it. It may be "just a theory" but oil companies are willing to pay big bucks for the answers.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I made a career working with things I couldn't see. I've never seen what causes fouling or entrainment in a distillation tower with my own eyes, but I have an idea what causes it so I know what to do about it. It may be "just a theory" but oil companies are willing to pay big bucks for the answers.


You couldn't directly see what causes fouling or entrainment, but you could see the results of what you did to fix it...i.e. you were able to test the theory, and if it didn't work you would have known to try something else.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

> As the sun gets quiet in the next few years, sea surface temperature will begin to fall, and the rise in CO2 will cease. If the sun stays quiet for 30 or 40 years, ocean surface temperatures will fall far enough to reverse the CO2 rise, the globe will enter a new little ice age, and things will get really interesting.


If the lifespan of humans was double what it is, these things might actually affect the perception of the whole thing. But most of us older folks won't live to see whether this turns out to be the case. And the young to middle age adults of today will be old and ignored when they try to tell their kids that the "cooling crisis" probably isn't the end of the world. Just like many of us can remember the global cooling concerns in the 1970s, it doesn't matter because enough time has passed that they can convince the masses that they have it right "this time." If things don't turn out the way they say, the next generation will still pull the same politi-science crap.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jtbrandt said:


> You couldn't directly see what causes fouling or entrainment, but you could see the results of what you did to fix it...i.e. you were able to test the theory, and if it didn't work you would have known to try something else.


Sure. That's how science works.

But sometimes scientists see things that will require costly measures to avoid. They can't say absolutely, but they think there's a good chance. That was the case at the Bingham Canyone Mine two years ago, a huge open pit copper mine near Salt Lake City.

Geologists saw readings they didn't like, then told management that a landslide might occur. They didn't know exactly when, and they didn't even know how big, but they still suggested that operations be halted and the possible area evacuated. Management had a choice; believe the geologists and lose a ton of money by shutting the mine down, or ignore the geologists and keep the mine open. Remember, the landslide prediction was only a theory, and geology isn't an exact science. Fortunately management listened to geologists and evacuated the area, because on April 10, 2013 one of the largest landslides on North American history took place at that mine.

_Signs of increasing strain prompted the mine&#8217;s operators to issue a press release seven hours before the collapse, with a warning that a landslide was imminent. All workers were evacuated and production had stopped before the landslide occurred; as a result, no one was injured._
http://earthsky.org/earth/this-date-in-science-landslide-at-bingham-canyon-mine

I hate to think what might have happened if some of the conservatives in this forum were in charge. The loss of life could have been enormous. But after all, the landslide prediction was "only a theory."


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> If things don't turn out the way they say, the next generation will still pull the same politi-science crap.


It really is the perfect political tool. If it shows signs of being true, then the people can be twisted into action. If it doesn't show signs, then "you just wait, it's coming".

I'm not suggesting that the scientists involved are scam artists and just made global warming up over a weekend of binge drinking. I think there's some scientific merit to it. That said, this is one of those issues that has crossed over and is now more valuable as political agenda than science.

Now, even scientists cannot debate it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SkizzlePig said:


> It really is the perfect political tool. If it shows signs of being true, then the people can be twisted into action. If it doesn't show signs, then "you just wait, it's coming".
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the scientists involved are scam artists and just made global warming up over a weekend of binge drinking. I think there's some scientific merit to it. That said, this is one of those issues that has crossed over and is now more valuable as political agenda than science.
> 
> Now, even scientists cannot debate it.


What amazes me is how effective the conservative machine has been at getting the message out that there is genuine controversy within the scientific community, when there is none. Even with 98% of scientists in agreement, they have been successful in convincing people that there are two realistic sides to the argument, both with more or less equal merit. It's not a majority of Americans who reject man made global warming, but polls usually put it as 30 to 40 percent. That's an astounding number of people to reject mainstream science.


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

Nevada said:


> What amazes me is how effective the conservative machine has been at getting the message out that there is genuine controversy within the scientific community, when there is none. Even with 98% of scientists in agreement, they have been successful in convincing people that there are two realistic sides to the argument, both with more or less equal merit. It's not a majority of Americans who reject man made global warming, but polls usually put it as 30 to 40 percent. That's an astounding number of people to reject mainstream science.


You're right, Nevada. No argument. Most scientists are onboard, but not so much with the people. There's a breach of trust; real or imagined.

Hence my previous statement about degrading trust among the normals for the scientific community.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

SkizzlePig said:


> You're right, Nevada. No argument. Most scientists are onboard, but not so much with the people. There's a breach of trust; real or imagined.
> 
> Hence my previous statement about degrading trust among the normals for the scientific community.


That's probably true. A fundamental distrust of both government and science already existed. Information from government scientists couldn't be respected. That laid the foundation.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

I'll bet my money on a bobtail nag. Doo dah


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> But after all, the landslide prediction was "only a theory."


I don't know the specifics of that landslide, but I suspect the theory was based on much more sound evidence than we have on certain other subjects. Predictions going out decades are rarely going to be anywhere close to as accurate as a prediction of imminent danger.

And I'd bet the people running the mine who made the decision to evacuate were conservatives...just a hunch. Conservatives don't have a problem with science...they have a problem with pseudo-science established by academic bullying.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

SkizzlePig said:


> It really is the perfect political tool. If it shows signs of being true, then the people can be twisted into action. If it doesn't show signs, then "you just wait, it's coming".
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the scientists involved are scam artists and just made global warming up over a weekend of binge drinking. I think there's some scientific merit to it. That said, this is one of those issues that has crossed over and is now more valuable as political agenda than science.
> 
> Now, even scientists cannot debate it.


I'm in about the same boat. I don't deny climate change at all, but I have a huge problem with the political bullying and "the science is settled" rhetoric. It's only "settled" because debate is not acceptable. That is the antithesis of science.

They have another play up their sleeve also. If things don't turn out like their predictions, they can say, "We saved the planet from the brink of disaster," whether or not their recommendations had any effect or not.


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> academic bullying



LOL. Brilliant term! Can I use that in the future, JT?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

Nevada said:


> That's probably true. A fundamental distrust of both government and science already existed. Information from government scientists couldn't be respected. That laid the foundation.


How about the government scientist mentioned in the OP? Do you respect his scientific opinions?


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

SkizzlePig said:


> LOL. Brilliant term! Can I use that in the future, JT?


Thanks. It's all yours.


----------



## SkizzlePig (May 14, 2006)

jtbrandt said:


> They have another play up their sleeve also. If things don't turn out like their predictions, they can say, "We saved the planet from the brink of disaster," whether or not their recommendations had any effect or not.



Yep! It's well orchestrated on their part (the politicians). They win either way ... and bank all of that political capital for the next assault on liberty.


----------



## unregistered353870 (Jan 16, 2013)

This is an interesting presentation worth watching (not claiming it's the gospel truth) but the link is to the presenter's closing statement, which says more eloquently what I have tried to get across. Can't embed it because it's an unlisted video.

http://youtu.be/YrI03ts--9I?t=30m40s

A snippet:


> Excluding discourse from the equation isn't science; it's advocacy.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*MIT CLIMATE SCIENTIST: GLOBAL WARMING BELIEVERS A âCULTâ*


> An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited âcultâ whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs.
> 
> During an appearance on this writerâs radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
> 
> ...


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/01/21/mit-climate-scientist-global-warming-believers-a-cult/


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> About the CO2:
> 
> Mankind contributes about eight gigatons of CO2 to the atmosphere compared with 210 gigatons from Mother Nature (natural processes) annually. We have a winner and it's Mother Nature by a landslide.


 The 'natural processes' you speak of essentially RECYCLE the same carbon back and forth, mostly into, and back out of, major carbon sinks like rocks and plant material. The CO2 mankind is putting into the atmosphere is ADDED to that number, every year.


----------

