# "Greatest scientific scandals of all time."



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

The Telegraph a Main Stream News Paper published this good article....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Global warming numbers are fudged.



> temperature records â on which the entire panic ultimately rested â were systematically âadjustedâ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.


Can't have this reported here or Obama's policies on global warming would look stupid.


----------



## Skandi (Oct 21, 2014)

It's not only a mainstream it's also a "broadsheet" I do remember reading somewhere a reason for the adjustments but I honestly cannot remember where or why. 

And don't worry, the UK government has horrific policies on energy etc too, so much so that they have trouble with power capacity. too much wind too many subsidies and not enough investment, in anything reliable.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

We've known the numbers were fudged with the email release several years ago. They never found out who let the cat out of the bag in East Anglia.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Where's a Paumon when you need one?

From the article...

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records â on which the entire panic ultimately rested â were systematically âadjustedâ to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline âHow we are being tricked by flawed data on global warmingâ, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/ blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

BlackFeather said:


> Can't have this reported here or Obama's policies on global warming would look stupid.


His policies look pretty stupid with or without these reports.... and its not just his global warming policies!


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

BlackFeather said:


> Global warming numbers are fudged.
> 
> 
> 
> Can't have this reported here or Obama's policies on global warming would look stupid.


Can't get enough of these "it's all about us" threads.

Practically every other country on earth (even Paraguay), buys into the issue of climate change, also many based on data, from their own research.

Somehow, Obama has skewed all of their data also, strictly for his own gain.

The great Oz!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And 3 million lemmings fell off the cliff and in to the water to drown while Galileo dare to apply logic and real science to stand in a small minority to say that the earth revolves around the sun.

Sorry global warming is cool, climate change is NORMALCY.

Many were lied to and of those some form a church over it.....


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Can't get enough of these "it's all about us" threads.
> 
> Practically every other country on earth (even Paraguay), buys into the issue of climate change, also many based on data, from their own research.
> 
> ...


Well most of those countries stand to gain lots of dollars for the harm the US has done to them First one sends me a large grant for or against I care not which side as long as their check clears ,i'll be for it .:thumb:

Till that time I say it is all crap :runforhills:


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Can't get enough of these "it's all about us" threads.
> 
> Practically every other country on earth (even Paraguay), buys into the issue of climate change, also many based on data, from their own research.
> 
> ...


Some countries play lip service, while most countries stand to benefit from the diminishing of America's industrial base to pay for its massive "contribution" to climate change.

A changing climate is normal. We could end ALL CO2 from every source on Earth and it would have no real effect.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> His policies look pretty stupid with or without these reports.... and its not just his global warming policies!


Post of the day award.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Now another article, when it rains it snows, err, pours...

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/01...le-go-to-jail-for-such-manipulations-of-data/

There is global warming... Inside their computers, but not in the real world.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

How long does it take sheep who follow blindly along to wake up & smell the coffee?

I'll confess I was a "D" ("crib D") for quite a few yrs, didn't vote blindly "D" tho. Usually voted for best lookin' & once asked my 7 yr old who to vote for. Registered as Independent but confess I leaned "D". DH kept pointing things out & my usual response was: "oh, they all do it!". I noticed too many lies & started delving for myself. GW was one I thought was gospel! I did!
But, hey, added things up finally & saw the light.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2015)

plowjockey said:


> Can't get enough of these "it's all about us" threads.
> 
> Practically every other country on earth (even Paraguay), buys into the issue of climate change, also many based on data, from their own research.
> 
> ...


If you follow the masses you very well may be fooled . Oft times the ( m ) is silent .


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

plowjockey said:


> Can't get enough of these "it's all about us" threads.
> 
> Practically every other country on earth (even Paraguay), buys into the issue of climate change, also many based on data, from their own research.
> 
> ...


I'm sure Paraguay and countries like it have state of the art monitoring facilities around the world. They simply fall in line with whatever numbers the UN puts out. Garbage in, garbage out.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Didn't read thread, maybe this was already brought up. But do a google on the author... Or continue patting yourselves on the back for never actually looking where your preferred info is sourced. Flat earthers for sure!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

fireweed farm said:


> Didn't read thread, maybe this was already brought up. But do a google on the author... Or continue patting yourselves on the back for never actually looking where your preferred info is sourced. Flat earthers for sure!
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker


Hmm, somebody got their climate change gravy train rattled. :angel:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

fireweed farm said:


> Didn't read thread, maybe this was already brought up. But do a google on the author... Or continue patting yourselves on the back for never actually looking where your preferred info is sourced. Flat earthers for sure!
> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Christopher_Booker


Surely you're not saying that _all_ skeptics are 'flat-earthers'. Surely not!

Regardless, there are plenty of others in the science field who aren't on board with the whole AGW hypothesis. Added to the scandal re: the IPCC emails and it's easy to see why more people are becoming skeptics.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

All you got is the "emails", and a very few scientists, it really is a tiny percentage not what your oil pushing pundits suggest. There is tons of research coming out every day with more and more proof. Lots of interesting stuff on both the Poles that you won't come across on your "conservative" channels. 

Why must environment issues be partisan?
Why can't I be conservative while understanding science all at the same time?
Seems "we" have been so dumbed down we trust whatever pundits, critics and oil company funded adverts tell "us".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

fireweed farm said:


> All you got is the "emails", and a very few scientists, it really is a tiny percentage not what your oil pushing pundits suggest. There is tons of research coming out every day with more and more proof. Lots of interesting stuff on both the Poles that you won't come across on your "conservative" channels.
> 
> Why must environment issues be partisan?
> Why can't I be conservative while understanding science all at the same time?
> Seems "we" have been so dumbed down we trust whatever pundits, critics and oil company funded adverts tell "us".


To me they aren't partisan. :hammer: You just made it partisan. :catfight:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

I've been environmentally concerned all my life. All our liberal friends use pesticides, weedkillers, hardly ever recycle, carry water bottles w/them wherever, toss 'em, and SAY they're all into GW. 
No, now its climate change. Their herd switched w/o a blink.


----------



## unregistered41671 (Dec 29, 2009)

HDRider said:


> To me they aren't partisan. :hammer: You just made it partisan. :catfight:


Usually when someone refers to "partisan", it means that you do not agree with *their* agenda. :hammer:


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

fireweed farm said:


> All you got is the "emails", and a very few scientists, it really is a tiny percentage not what your oil pushing pundits suggest. There is tons of research coming out every day with more and more proof. Lots of interesting stuff on both the Poles that you won't come across on your "conservative" channels.
> 
> Why must environment issues be partisan?
> Why can't I be conservative while understanding science all at the same time?
> Seems "we" have been so dumbed down we trust whatever pundits, critics and oil company funded adverts tell "us".


A 'few' emails???? The second round alone contained over 5,000 emails. And those were emails of IPCC scientists!! And they show an* intentional* effort to hide and distort data!!!!!

In light of that, and the fact that the issue is 1. being funded by our federal government and 2. being used for politcal purposes, how can you have blind faith that you're not being misled/deceived? 

It's only a partisan issue because some people don't believe the evidence. And I would remind you of Jonathan Gruber's words about Obamacare and the stupidity of the American voter. Why wouldn't that apply to AGW as well?

ETA: I will also say, I have a hard time trusting *anything* connected to/coming from the UN. They've got corruption down to a fine art.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Most people do not need a scientist or a papered mathematician, or a clock to tell the sunset has happened. Now, see there have been and will again come times when at the strock of noon it will be dark ... I do not start wondering and postulating that the sun has changed patterns.....no, I hunker down a ready for a natural occurrence that predictably will occur...as storm. 

Some folks having lacked the basic life skills of knowledge and life phases that or natural and now require someone to hold their hand and provide emotional aid to them as pass thru life's natural phases. 

So I guess between snake oil salesmen paid for by a governmental group seeking more control and folks who need their hand held and folks who need a clock to know when the sun rises and and sunset and confusion over a darkening of a storm.

There will always be a willing victim buying worthless snake oil.

Drinking snake oil never did or will benefit anyone but the salesman. But he always willing to help and comfort the weak persons lauded with emotional need.


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

fireweed farm said:


> All you got is the "emails", and a very few scientists, it really is a tiny percentage not what your oil pushing pundits suggest. There is tons of research coming out every day with more and more proof. Lots of interesting stuff on both the Poles that you won't come across on your "conservative" channels.
> 
> Why must environment issues be partisan?
> Why can't I be conservative while understanding science all at the same time?
> Seems "we" have been so dumbed down we trust whatever pundits, critics and oil company funded adverts tell "us".


LOL blame it on big oil :facepalm:

What about the money that govts hand out by the truckload keeping the scientists lined up like heroin addicted junkies waiting for their next fix. No climate change no smack.....can't be having that.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> Most people do not need a scientist or a papered mathematician, or a clock to tell the sunset has happened. Now, see there have been and will again come times when at the strock of noon it will be dark ... I do not start wondering and postulating that the sun has changed patterns.....no, I hunker down a ready for a natural occurrence that predictably will occur...as storm.
> 
> Some folks having lacked the basic life skills of knowledge and life phases that or natural and now require someone to hold their hand and provide emotional aid to them as pass thru life's natural phases.
> 
> ...


Man made CO2 is not a "natural occurrence" That is the whole issue. How can it be compared with the setting sun?

So, if we simply adapt the "don't worry, be happy" mantra on everything. life will work out great? 

The naysayers, auto makers and oil companies, *fought for 50 years*, to keep tetraethyl lead in gasoline. The endless health studies were "junk science". Of course the opposition had no ulterior motives, LOL

The U.S. burns 400 million gallons of gasoline _per day_, so we would be using leaded gas for about 94 years, as of today. A little lead won't hurt us, right?

Removing carbon monoxide from exhaust emissions,was another scam, by the lefties.

Snake oil indeed.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Man made CO2 is not a "natural occurrence" That is the whole issue. How can it be compared with the setting sun?
> 
> So, if we simply adapt the "don't worry, be happy" mantra on everything. life will work out great?
> 
> ...


Was there evidence that the data in those studies (by the scientists actually doing the studies) was intentionally altered/distorted to show a desired outcome?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Humans are a part of nature. Animals depending on intelligence, has created tools and modified their environments..this is natural...really I do not wish to embarrass you but you seem to not get that we humans are natural.

So are farts of all animals
So are volcanos
Forest fire 
Oil has been seeping from the ground and crust to land and water.

Every life form adapts to live. That is nature.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

As long as we are on the subject, we keep hearing about a carbon tax. We are carbon based life forms, so it all other life on this planet. We need carbon to live, cloths are made from plants and animals (even oil is made from dead animals) which are carbon based, our body runs on glucose which is partly made from carbon, and to stay warm we burn carbon in our fuels. So my question, is a carbon tax a tax on life, and our right to live? Does any government have the right to tax life itself?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> As long as we are on the subject, we keep hearing about a carbon tax. We are carbon based life forms, so it all other life on this planet. We need carbon to live, cloths are made from plants and animals (even oil is made from dead animals) which are carbon based, our body runs on glucose which is partly made from carbon, and to stay warm we burn carbon in our fuels. So my question, is a carbon tax a tax on life, and our right to live? Does any government have the right to tax life itself?


Well, they are taxing our right to breathe! What is expelled when we breathe? CO2. Trees & plants take it up...plant more.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Well, they are taxing our right to breathe! What is expelled when we breathe? CO2. *Trees & plants take it up...plant more.*



Ah yes there is part of the conundrum..
If you plant more trees you make bigger heat sinks. So it would seem that the green movement is to blame for GW... :facepalm:

Of course they won't believe it, they would rather blame someone else.. But that is typical of their ilk.. No personal responsibility..

I won't debate this anymore, because it simply is a waste of time. You can't debate those who use non-scientific means to come to their conclusions..



:catfight:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

One example of the fraud behind AGW. There aren't many stations in South America. It's been reported that the temperatures have been rising. Turns out the actual data proves that not to be true.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wor...tampering-with-temperatures-in-south-america/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> =plowjockey;7374448]Man made CO2 is not a "natural occurrence" That is the whole issue. How can it be compared with the setting sun?



I would like you to go see if you can tell the difference in CO2 that man puts out and CO2 what volcanos puts out, and other Natural causes. Tell all of us how you can tell the difference.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I stumbled across an article about this phenomenon -- the 'adjustment' of raw data -- while discussing climate change over the liberal forum that banned me. 

The article I read was not inflammatory; it merely explained how scientists go about 'cleansing' the raw data to remove what they deem are 'anomalies.' 

In short: We will only see what we expect to see ...

I found it very disturbing. :teehee:


----------



## Johnny Dolittle (Nov 25, 2007)




----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Yes those kind of people have been "Adjusting" the values to use in their charts for years.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I stumbled across an article about this phenomenon -- the 'adjustment' of raw data -- while discussing climate change over the liberal forum that banned me.
> 
> The article I read was not inflammatory; it merely explained how scientists go about 'cleansing' the raw data to remove what they deem are 'anomalies.'
> 
> ...


Wow! Post of the day award.
I've also read similar statements & find it disturbing too. Almost like they dare you to refute what they want to do.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> I would like you to go see if you can tell the difference in CO2 that man puts out and CO2 what volcanos puts out, and other Natural causes. Tell all of us how you can tell the difference.


I can't and don't care to, since i am not a scientist. Perhaps you are. 

I don't think scientist's can either. they're going by historic CO2 levels, which have skyrocketed since the industrial revolution.

Can _you_ tell us if there has been significantly more _volcanos_, in the last 60 years - verses the 649,940 years before that? If so maybe we need to make scientist aware of that fact.

Maybe volcanoes are the real problem


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Was there evidence that the data in those studies (by the scientists actually doing the studies) was intentionally altered/distorted to show a desired outcome?


Maybe. Probably. 

Many scientific CO2 studies are influenced by coal and petroleum concerns, so their results should be pretty predictable. The other side surely fudges sometimes too.

I'm not scientist, but it seems measuring historic CO2 levels is pretty straightforward and relatively accurate.


----------



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

http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/env99/env99408.htm




plowjockey said:


> Maybe. Probably.
> 
> Many scientific CO2 studies are influenced by coal and petroleum concerns, so their results should be pretty predictable. The other side surely fudges sometimes too.
> 
> I'm not scientist, but it seems measuring historic CO2 levels is pretty straightforward and relatively accurate.


Then for your delectation- the responses to a high schooler asking that question. Things are never as simple as people want.


----------



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

The main issue is always ignored by the global warming faction- the population increase causes change. Everything humans do or can do causes a distruption in the 'natural' world whether we burn coal or keep sunlight from warming the earth by use of solar panels and send the enery into running computers. 
Nagging without solutions that are viable are just irritating noise. I hate the usual go to solution of nuclear power. That is the easiest option for government in terms of cost without inconvenience. But a nuclear accident is not fixable, along with the waste fuel issue.
Despite the party line of global warming, which is spoken of in terms of belief by politicians, until they are willing to admit there are no easy, convenient solutions to human population growth effects, no one is going to be honest about their "scientific" data and what it means. They are just riding the hobby horse nearest to their own belief while complaining about their neighbor's' horses.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> I'm not scientist, but it seems measuring historic CO2 levels is pretty straightforward and relatively accurate.


Indeed, which makes what the IPCC scientists did all the more nefarious, particularly in light of the socialistic policies world leaders are trying to put in place based on intentionally distorted data.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> Maybe. Probably.
> 
> Many scientific CO2 studies are influenced by coal and petroleum concerns, so their results should be pretty predictable. The other side surely fudges sometimes too.
> 
> I'm not scientist, but it seems measuring historic CO2 levels is pretty straightforward and relatively accurate.


 But still it don't SEPARATE what MAN has put in the air now does it? Just that a few particles per billion has happen.
And no scientific study done by legitimate scientists can say MAN had cause this tiny tiny amount to go up. And even if man has put a few more particles in the air doesn't mean MAN is causing any of this global Warming, oh sorry, Climate Change, oh sorry weather changes, oh sorry what ever the latest happy term to use.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

where I want to said:


> The main issue is always ignored by the global warming faction- the population increase causes change. *Everything humans do or can do causes a disruption in the 'natural' world* whether we burn coal or keep sunlight from warming the earth by use of solar panels and send the energy into running computers.
> 
> Nagging without solutions that are viable are just irritating noise. I hate the usual go to solution of nuclear power. That is the easiest option for government in terms of cost without inconvenience. But a nuclear accident is not fixable, along with the waste fuel issue.
> 
> Despite the party line of global warming, which is spoken of in terms of belief by politicians, until they are willing to admit there are no easy, convenient solutions to human population growth effects, no one is going to be honest about their "scientific" data and what it means. They are just riding the hobby horse nearest to their own belief while complaining about their neighbor's' horses.


You kinda hit on it. It seems like some of the CC fanatics simply want people removed from the face of the Earth. Everyone but them of course.

It is physically impossible to stop emitting enough CO2 to matter. And that argument itself denies the natural cycles that are impossible to combat.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> Indeed, which makes what the IPCC scientists did all the more nefarious, particularly in light of the socialistic policies world leaders are trying to put in place based on intentionally distorted data.


How do you know the data you believe, is not distorted?

Just curious.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> But still it don't SEPARATE what MAN has put in the air now does it? Just that a few particles per billion has happen.
> And no scientific study done by legitimate scientists can say MAN had cause this tiny tiny amount to go up. And even if man has put a few more particles in the air doesn't mean MAN is causing any of this global Warming, oh sorry, Climate Change, oh sorry weather changes, oh sorry what ever the latest happy term to use.


Seems I read where the world burns about 800 million tons of coal per year.

Not sure how that CO2 output compares with that of volcanoes.

I think their point has been - all along, that although we really cannot control, the CO2 output from volcanoes, or cow farts, etc., we for sure can control what CO2 comes out of our power pants.

There are over _1 billion automobiles_ running on earth today, which emit CO2 also. They are trying to find ways to reduce those emissions also.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

BJ go read the post made by Darren it should explain many things and why this GW agenda came about and why it is being pushed so hard. One thing it is NOT about man causing this Global Warming.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Then do the research and read before you sign up for a position, vote or get a loan.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

The latest peer reviewed paper... http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Why...om_an_irreducibly_simple_climate_model_2_.pdf
The non-technical version is the formula used to project global warming is inaccurate, It has too much feed back. This new paper shows the error and a new formula which matches true data. The maximum global warming by the end of the century is 1 degree Celsius. That is the maximum, there may be less and possibly no change. It also says if we burn all recoverable fossil fuels it would result in a 2.2 degree increase and the system would stabilize. So the conclusion is there is no crisis. The article was peer reviewed by scientists including global warming scientists and they could find no fault with the correction of the formula.

The problem is this paper is not politically correct. There are many scientists who don't believe in global warming but to publicly say so would end their careers. It is like a scientist saying there is a God, that ends their career too.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Just for fun...

"Yale anti-fossil fuel campaigners have indefinitely postponed a protest that was set for this weekend due to &#8220;unfavorable weather conditions and other logistical issues.&#8221; "

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/13/its-too-cold-to-protest-global-warming-at-yale/

Matt


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

arabian knight said:


> But still it don't SEPARATE what MAN has put in the air now does it? Just that a few particles per billion has happen.
> And no scientific study done by legitimate scientists can say MAN had cause this tiny tiny amount to go up. And even if man has put a few more particles in the air doesn't mean MAN is causing any of this global Warming, oh sorry, Climate Change, oh sorry weather changes, oh sorry what ever the latest happy term to use.


CO2 in the atmosphere isn't much compared to water vapor. 

"The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities.* 

There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In day to day weather forecasting, the greenhouse effect from water vapor is important while carbon dioxide is not. *

The atmospheric greenhouse effect from clouds and water vapor causes cloudy nights to be warmer than clear nights, all else being equal."

http://www.theweatherprediction.com/habyhints/155/


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Hold on. I got a pot boiling and throwing steam. Let me go turn that off. Oh my..


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Hold on. I got a pot boiling and throwing steam. Let me go turn that off. Oh my..


Ah put a bung it it you'll get a bang out of it :runforhills:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Ah put a bung it it you'll get a bang out of it :runforhills:


Too bad we can't do that with some of the AGW grant suckers and BS dispensers. Money goes in. BS comes out. Maybe someone with lots of ducats needs to offer grants for the truth.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Darren said:


> Too bad we can't do that with some of the AGW grant suckers and BS dispensers. Money goes in. BS comes out. Maybe someone with lots of ducats needs to offer grants for the truth.


Who funds the opposition?

Just curious. They certainly don't work for free.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Who funds the opposition?
> 
> Just curious. They certainly don't work for free.


Why does getting the truth out about this farce need to be paid for? How about people with climate science backgrounds, who are good and sick and tired of the lies put forth by the warmist crowd? Why do they have to be paid, or schills of oil?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> Why does getting the truth out about this farce need to be paid for? How about people with climate science backgrounds, who are good and sick and tired of the lies put forth by the warmist crowd? Why do they have to be paid, or schills of oil?


Why do you think they would they do it for free?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Because most people don't expect to be paid to expose a lie. Especially when the logic of achems razor is applied to the reality out in the open.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Why do you think they would they do it for free?


Because there are people in the world who want the truth exposed, without getting paid. Unlike those who will do anything to get paid, including lying, and skewing stats.

Tim Ball. Who pays him?


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

A link to read carefully: http://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ws-host-climate-scientists-fabricated-temper/



> An independent group of researchers called Berkeley Earth have the sole goal of working with the raw data and analyzing it for themselves. Zeke Hausfather is a data scientist with the group.
> Hausfather told PunditFact that the warning flag raised by _The Telegraph_ article and bloggers amounts to cherry-picking the data. Thatâs because while some adjustments might make it seem like scientists are artificially raising temperatures, some adjustments at other stations actually would lead you to the opposite conclusion.
> "(They) look through all those thousands of stations, find a few that show big adjustments, and tell everyone that they are evidence of fraud," Hausfather said. "You will rarely see them pick out stations like Reno, Paris, London, Tokyo, or many others where the adjustments dramatically lower the warming trend."





> In the United States, with about 5 percent of Earthâs land area, the official data file raised temperatures compared to the original readings. But the same methods lowered the data records in Africa, and for all land-based readings taken together, the adjustments basically made no change at all (the black line). With ocean temperature trends, the efforts to compensate for the human factor lower the numbers dramatically.
> "The net effect of adjustments is to actually reduce the amount of global warming we've observed since 1880 by about 20 percent," Hausfather said. "Folks skeptical of temperature adjustments are welcome not to use them if they'd like, but you end up with more global warming, not less."
> Mark Serreze is professor of geography at the University of Colorado-Boulder. Serreze said over the years, many people have vetted the statistical methods that lead to the adjusted data files.
> "The features of the global temperature records have been verified by comparisons between analyses from different centers and sensitivities to different ways of treating the data," Serreze said. "The peer reviewed literature is extensive. This is why there is consensus that the data are correct."
> For the record, the author of the _The Telegraph_ opinion piece made the same point about eight months ago. Back then, it inspired a similar flurry of claims that government scientists intentionally engaged in fraud.





> The allegations raised by skeptics like the author of _The Telegraph_ item have had no effect on the consensus that the Earth has seen an increase in temperatures over the past 100 years.
> This claim has been debunked before. To continue to repeat it moves it into the realm of the ridiculous. We rate the claim Pants on Fire.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I haven't heard of Tim Ball. Who is he?

ETA - never mind, I looked him up. A Canadian retired professor of geography who disputes climate change. He's funded by Exxon Mobile and American Petroleum Institute.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I haven't heard of Tim Ball. Who is he?
> 
> ETA - never mind, I looked him up. A Canadian retired professor of geography who disputes climate change. He's funded by Exxon Mobile and American Petroleum Institute.


LOL. Soon enough, we will all know the truth one way or another...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> LOL. Soon enough, we will all know the truth one way or another...


Yup, I agree with that. 

One man's truth is another man's lie and visa versa. It works equally both ways and each one thinks they are right and the other is wrong, or lying. There are people on both sides of the AGW coin that pay people to be "informers" or "witnessers" to their truths that they want other people to believe. 

I think people should simply listen and observe for themselves whatever the earth's truth is instead of relying on what other people say.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> Who funds the opposition?
> 
> Just curious. They certainly don't work for free.


Are you suggest we simply let the harbingers of doom run free and destroy the world for all the wrong reasons.

To be clear - Those of whom I speak are the crooked scientist sucking on grant tits, saying anything to keep the money flowing.

I wish you understood. I'd like to help you understand. I just don't think you want to understand.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

BlackFeather said:


> The latest peer reviewed paper... http://o.b5z.net/i/u/10152887/f/Why...om_an_irreducibly_simple_climate_model_2_.pdf
> The non-technical version is the formula used to project global warming is inaccurate, It has too much feed back. This new paper shows the error and a new formula which matches true data. The maximum global warming by the end of the century is 1 degree Celsius. That is the maximum, there may be less and possibly no change. It also says if we burn all recoverable fossil fuels it would result in a 2.2 degree increase and the system would stabilize. So the conclusion is there is no crisis. The article was peer reviewed by scientists including global warming scientists and they could find no fault with the correction of the formula.
> 
> The problem is this paper is not politically correct. There are many scientists who don't believe in global warming but to publicly say so would end their careers. It is like a scientist saying there is a God, that ends their career too.


Not really, many openly believe in God, this climate bull, tho, is do or die.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> Are you suggest we simply let the harbingers of doom run free and destroy the world for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> To be clear - Those of whom I speak are the crooked scientist sucking on grant tits, saying anything to keep the money flowing.
> 
> I wish you understood. I'd like to help you understand. I just don't think you want to understand.



LOL

Are the opposition scientists, doing their research for free? 

To answer your question - No, but for me personally, i just try to throw some rationality into it.

Scientist from all over the world, have done their own research - for 30 years, so It's tough for me to simply buy, that this is some sort of our own _Left Wing conspiracy_, to squander money and control the masses.

I also fully understand that there is a huge amount of money at stake in all of this and that some of the research is funded by Coal and Petro and that Americans are always automatically against something that might hit them the pocketbook. 

It is very interesting that although it is very tough to tell and accept now, the biggest point is that man made Climate change is expected to have a much more measurable, much more negative impact on _future generations_.

Who cares about them, right?


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> How do you know the data you believe, is not distorted?
> 
> Just curious.


I'm not claiming _any_ climate data that I believe. 

What I know is that there are emails showing intentional manipulation/distortion of the data being used to 'prove' AGW and that lawmakers are using that data to force economic policy. I know that the data is coming from the UN and that they are probably the most corrupt organization on the planet.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> LOL
> 
> Are the opposition scientists, doing their research for free?
> 
> ...


That is the beauty of the argument of CC.. It isn't measurable today, but watch out, future generations are doomed.

It is so obvious to many, myself included that this whole thing is nothing more than an attack on industrial development in general, and America in particular.

Like so many of your ilk, you fail to see who America's enemies truly are. You just jump on these "feel good" band wagons, and want everyone to join along. When some don't jump on, they are ignorant, partisan or worse.

Obvious and oblivious.. The words sound and look alike, but miles apart.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Paumon said:


> I think people should simply listen and observe for themselves whatever the earth's truth is instead of relying on what other people say.


That is what I am doing. And the earth in these parts, though forecast by the panic people to be in a highly affected area by warming, is definitely NOT warming. My source is my very own, government run weather station, 60 feet from my front door.

I doubt most people have that luxury, but I wish they did.

When this farce runs it's course, I wonder what the alarmists will say? Being so fully invested in the biggest hoax of all time, it is not like they are not going to go down without a fight to save face. 

I feel sorry for those trapped on the wrong side of history. The worlds biggest hoax, is sure to bring along with it, the worlds biggest embarrassments as well.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


> That is the beauty of the argument of CC.. It isn't measurable today, but watch out, future generations are doomed.
> 
> It is so obvious to many, myself included that this whole thing is nothing more than an attack on industrial development in general, and America in particular.
> 
> ...



We are having almost the exact same argument, as 25 years ago, with CFCs causing the depletion of the ozone layer.

CFCs damaging the ozone layer was real - with future dire consequences, to mankind.

CFC damaging the ozone layer was fake - dreamed up by leftists, to swill govt money and kill business. 

As we all know, CFCs were indeed banned and today and _for the most part,_ no one could care less, or even notice that they are gone.

Scientist are now reporting that the ozone layer is recovering from the damage.

Is it really recovering, or was it really even a problem in the first place? 

I don't don't know. I hope it was and I hope it is.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I take comfort in knowing that when climatologists are done tweaking the numbers, the current subzero cold snap -- clearly an anomaly! -- will have been adjusted upward to reflect the more moderate temperatures we're accustomed to experiencing. 

When I'm freezing my hindquarters off doing barn chores, I find it helpful to remind myself that even though the thermometer says it's -3 degrees, and it certainly FEELS like it's -3, it's actually much warmer -- just ask the scientists!


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

plowjockey said:


> We are having almost the exact same argument, as 25 years ago, with CFCs causing the depletion of the ozone layer.
> 
> CFCs damaging the ozone layer was real - with future dire consequences, to mankind.
> 
> ...


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

HDRider said:


>


Well, that end this argument.

Does this mean that I am right?


----------



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

plowjockey said:


> Well, that end this argument.
> 
> Does this mean that I am right?


Does it not raise even a single question that you say that you do not understand the science but believe in it while you condemn people who don't believe because you say they don't understand the science?

Me- I have a much more simple issue. Nagging may make the nagger feel superior but without a real world solution, it is only noise.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I, like many have lived thru weather, and have a clear memory of the events. Yet, I am being told that it was not the reality I faced. So, I know I am being lied to. Add in that I see the grab to control and take money. So, I speak out.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

where I want to said:


> Does it not raise even a single question that you say that you do not understand the science but believe in it while you condemn people who don't believe because you say they don't understand the science?
> 
> Me- I have a much more simple issue. Nagging may make the nagger feel superior but without a real world solution, it is only noise.


I don't recall condemning anyone (at least not to death  ), but if we think we are right on something, doesn't that usually mean that those that oppose us are wrong?

I do understand the science, that higher CO2 levels can create a "greenhouse effect" on earth (at least I think I do).

Does anyone dispute that theory?

The dispute comes from whether the CO2 levels that are man made are significant enough, to create a future problem, or if the number are even accurate.

Personally, I can only honestly weigh 30 years of world wide science research, verses, the financial desires of industry and Americans who automatically distrust anything the Government does, even when it is run by Republicans.

I was dogged by HDR over my concern for the climate of future Americans. Maybe he is right, why should I even care? It should be all about me.

If I have not directly stated so, I side with pro climate change scientists, since i have seen no viable reasons to oppose and especially since I'm not a scientist, doing my own research, with different results.

I don't like things costing more, but I have realized - long ago, that living in a clean world is not free.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

kasilofhome said:


> I, like many have lived thru weather, and have a clear memory of the events. Yet, I am being told that it was not the reality I faced. So, I know I am being lied to. Add in that I see the grab to control and take money. So, I speak out.


Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought it was determined long ago, that the real concern of long term climate change has little, or nothing to do with, the normal annual differences in seasonal weather patterns, that we see today, 25 or 55 years ago.

But then, I do have lilacs, that are started budding last month.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Again nobody has come up with a instrument that can TELL the difference what man puts in the air and what is naturally accruing. Just because man has been in the industrial age for the last 100 years proves NOTHING, as nobody can read what CO2 is going up just that a few parts per billion has increased. 
So man crated this CO2 increase Nobody KNOWS for SURE. Just Speculation and Bad data to screw around with peoples minds. And now a new religion has been created for those few to worship. And 100 years is just a Tick of the clock when talking about climate change. Man has just been keeping records a little of 100 years and that is nothing compared to the 4.3 Billion years the earth has been spinning around the sun. LOL


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Again nobody has come up with a instrument that can TELL the difference what man puts in the air and what is naturally accruing. Just because man has been in the industrial age for the last 100 years proves NOTHING, as nobody can read what CO2 is going up just that a few parts per billion has increased.
> So man crated this CO2 increase Nobody KNOWS for SURE. Just Speculation and Bad data to screw around with peoples minds. And now a new religion has been created for those few to worship. And 100 years is just a Tick of the clock when talking about climate change. Man has just been keeping records a little of 100 years and that is nothing compared to the 4.3 Billion years the earth has been spinning around the sun. LOL


So, we are now disputing that scientists can measure changing periods and differeing levels of CO2, from Antarctic ice scientists believe to be 800,000 years old?

I guess this falls in line perfectly with that phony carbon dating, whereas the earth is actually only 6,000 years old.


----------



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

http://climate.umn.edu/doc/journal/wint77_78.html




plowjockey said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought it was determined long ago, that the real concern of long term climate change has little, or nothing to do with, the normal annual differences in seasonal weather patterns, that we see today, 25 or 55 years ago.
> 
> But then, I do have lilacs, that are started budding last month.


The trouble is that there is both a desire to have there be one, clear truth and to put everything in terms of personal experience. There have been periods of warmth and cold over human history. 
It's the belief part of this that is so wrong because it refuses to admit to conflicting information that says the scientists are not as devoted to the truth as they are devoted to their choice of the truth and the desire to have everyone else acknowledge their superiority of truth. They have a dreadful tendency to withhold information that they think the uninformed masses are too uneducated to keep in perspective.

Lilacs have bloomed in February before- maybe not just in your memory. That is not the same as never.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

plowjockey said:


> If I have not directly stated so, I side with pro climate change scientists, since i have seen no viable reasons to oppose and especially since I'm not a scientist, doing my own research, with different results.


I notice that you haven't commented on the 'climategate' email controversy. Does that issue give you _any_ doubts on the topic, that their data may be intentionally distorted for political reasons?


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

Txsteader said:


> I notice that you haven't commented on the 'climategate' email controversy. Does that issue give you _any_ doubts on the topic, that their data may be intentionally distorted for political reasons?


Okay. I guess i don't have enough to do.


Going by the choice "excerpts" given here, a mountain out of a mole hill, but I don't see changed data.

Do the Pro CC people have to play politics too? Of course they do.

This is a well funded fight from both sides. Is there something extra in it for them? When isn't there?

http://www.globalwarming.org/2010/03/05/climategate-reloaded-scientists-plan-their-counter-attack/


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Common sense, freedom, logic,.....those things are on the table.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

plowjockey said:


> I don't recall condemning anyone (at least not to death  ), but if we think we are right on something, doesn't that usually mean that those that oppose us are wrong?
> 
> I do understand the science, that higher CO2 levels can create a "greenhouse effect" on earth (at least I think I do).
> 
> ...


That is the exact idea that enabled the selling of AGW by bypassing rational thought. Associating it with pollution was a masterful piece of marketing. CO2 has nothing to do with clean air or clean water. Nor does water vapor which is so more prevalent it overwhelms any contribution by CO2.

Of course we can't regulate water vapor but CO2 as a villain is something governments can make money by getting people concerned.

One technique of marketing is selling by fear. Any number of consumer products play on that emotion including many that are really superfluous. CO2 has been sold to people though fear. Homeland security was sold the same way.

Does anyone else get a mental wiff of Nazi Germany via the term *Homeland* Security? It's not that far from the *Fatherland*.

Fear sells because it activates basic human nature that is associated with flight or fight. You don't think. You do. The selling of AGW is up there with celebrity endorsements when you think it through. In this case we rely on the fact that the scientist is special just like the paid celebrity. It's BS folks!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Common sense, freedom, logic,.....those things are on the table.


 Common sense and logic indicates that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere over a long period of time will slowly increase temps. Do you have data to suggest CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> CO2 has nothing to do with clean air or clean water. Nor does water vapor which is so more prevalent it overwhelms any contribution by CO2.


 Yes, water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect. That does not mean that it 'overwhelms' CO2, more like CO2 ADDS to the net effect. CO2 in and of itself is not bad, its plant food. But we're adding more to the atmosphere than has been there for millions of years. To think there will be no effect from that seems far fetched.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Yet, just a mere 40 years ago, the imminent danger was the coming Ice Age.

1970s Global Cooling Scare

Sound familiar? Notice, they had the data to prove it. Back then, the culprits were CO2 and aerosols. I actually stopped using hairspray back then because of all the hype. 

Reading that hype and today's hype makes it difficult to believe anything they're saying. They've lost all credibility.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

1. We are worldwide suffering from climate NORMALCY.
2. Carbon dioxide was dubbed a pollution, - greenhouse gas
A. It was dubbed a greenhouse gas to fit an agenda
B. Without carbon dioxide plants would die...followed by animals.
3. All life forms need carbon dioxide to live, in one way or another organic vs non organic is easy to determine via carbon present.

4. The group relishing c.f.,gw..ect have never gotten it right.

If you don't make a mistake your not working
If you only make mistakes your not working for me.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Yes, water vapor contributes more to the greenhouse effect. That does not mean that it 'overwhelms' CO2, more like CO2 ADDS to the net effect. CO2 in and of itself is not bad, its plant food. But we're adding more to the atmosphere than has been there for millions of years. To think there will be no effect from that seems far fetched.


Water vapor is controlled by the Sun. The amount of water vapor clearly is vastly greater than CO2. If we have a culprit for variations in climate, it's the Sun. On another website one of the questions is which is bigger, the Earth or the Sun. I'm stunned by how many think the Earth is bigger than the Sun. A AGW believer I know thinks the Earth is bigger than the Sun. We're pissants in comparison.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Common sense and logic indicates that adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere over a long period of time will slowly increase temps. Do you have data to suggest CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?


Sure it is. But you do realize that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, right? And that the C02 put out by humans is dwarfed in comparison?

ETA: Sorry, I see others have said the same thing.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

farmerDale said:


> Sure it is. But you do realize that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, right? And that the C02 put out by humans is dwarfed in comparison?
> 
> ETA: Sorry, I see others have said the same thing.



It bears repeating often along with the fact without the Sun the Earth is an ice ball. We know the output of the Sun varies over time. I can't believe that doesn't have the greatest effect on climate.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> 1. We are worldwide suffering from climate NORMALCY.
> 2. Carbon dioxide was dubbed a pollution, - greenhouse gas
> A. It was dubbed a greenhouse gas to fit an agenda
> B. Without carbon dioxide plants would die...followed by animals.
> ...


 Hang in there, global warming will start again. Its called SPRING. :thumb:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Sure it is. But you do realize that water vapor is the biggest greenhouse gas, right? And that the C02 put out by humans is dwarfed in comparison?
> 
> ETA: Sorry, I see others have said the same thing.


 Again, in case you missed it, while water vapor is indeed the most prevalent greenhouse gas, CO2 ranks a close second. And again, water is not 'dwarfing' anything, industrial CO2 is ADDING to the total greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Its not a comparison, they BOTH ADD to the total.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Again, in case you missed it, while water vapor is indeed the most prevalent greenhouse gas, CO2 ranks a close second. And again, water is not 'dwarfing' anything, industrial CO2 is ADDING to the total greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Its not a comparison, they BOTH ADD to the total.


In case you missed it, I edited my post just for you.

Yes, water vapor dwarfs C02 as "greenhouse gas".


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> It bears repeating often along with the fact without the Sun the Earth is an ice ball. We know the output of the Sun varies over time. I can't believe that doesn't have the greatest effect on climate.


 Of course the sun has an effect on climate. As does the concentrations of greenhouse gasses. Its not an 'either/or' proposition.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> In case you missed it, I edited my post just for you.
> 
> Yes, water vapor dwarfs C02 as "greenhouse gas".


 Yes, there is more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. No one disputes that. However that is totally irrelevant to mankinds role in increasing CO2 levels. Best estimates is that CO2 adds anywhere from 10-25% of the total 'greenhouse effect'. Now what do you think will happen if that concentration doubles? Do you think the global temps will go up, or down?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And Methane puts C02 to shame at 10 times worse. Ya methane that keeps bubbling up all over this earth, even has killed a entire village of people a few years back in Cameroon at Lake Monoun in 1984, causing the death of 38 people living nearby.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Again, in case you missed it, while water vapor is indeed the most prevalent greenhouse gas, CO2 ranks a close second. And again, water is not 'dwarfing' anything, industrial CO2 is ADDING to the total greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Its not a comparison, they BOTH ADD to the total.


Remember, the USA produces less Co2 than we can sink. So we're helping the rest of the world remove that horrible Co2 that life needs to survive!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Again, in case you missed it, while water vapor is indeed the most prevalent greenhouse gas, CO2 ranks a close second. And again, water is not 'dwarfing' anything, industrial CO2 is ADDING to the total greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Its not a comparison, they BOTH ADD to the total.


Greg, are you saying the effect of the Sun on our climate is such that CO2 has a greater effect?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Yes, there is more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. No one disputes that. However that is totally irrelevant to mankinds role in increasing CO2 levels. Best estimates is that CO2 adds anywhere from 10-25% of the total 'greenhouse effect'. Now what do you think will happen if that concentration doubles? Do you think the global temps will go up, or down?


Where is all this Co2 coming from....not the USA! Let other countries worry about their own pollution. Isn't Co2 necessary for life to exist? What level of Co2 is bad and why?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya really and if co2 was stopped completely around the world, in 100 years NO DIFFERENCE in temps would be experienced, NONE. No lowering of temps at all. Man just can't stop slow down or even lessen what Mother Nature is doing and has done for 4.3 billion years.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

'Mother nature' is not digging up 200million years worth of buried plants and burning them in a few generations time. That would be the human race. No shame in admitting it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Remember, the USA produces less Co2 than we can sink. So we're helping the rest of the world remove that horrible Co2 that life needs to survive!


 Got any sort of reference for that claim? Given land use trends, I very much doubt that is the case. The US is second in the world in CO2 emissions, and first per-capita. If we were sequestering more than we were emitting, why are global CO2 levels still going up? Gonna blame it all on the Chinese?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As, a animal, which is ecological a a part of nature I enjoy the intelligence that allows my fellow humans to make use of stored hydrocarbons. By realising the stored carbon dioxide we make use of some day revert to another phase as has happened in the past naturally prior to man's first step on earth.

I believe that those who entrenched in fear over nature's natural phases forget nature is always shifting ebbing and flowing from high to lows....be it with lynx and hares or 
tides of the shorelines. Nature is not stable it is not a vacuum.

Matter is not created by man....just used...and in the use of matter it maybe changed but never lost.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

Someone mentioned who is getting paid for what so I thought this article was interesting.

http://www.cfact.org/2015/02/12/vilifying-realist-science-and-scientists/

These guys did the paper I mentioned before on their own time with no one financing them. With all the argument about co2 warming the atmosphere, the paper stated that if we burned all the fossil fuels we have available, that includes known reserves in the ground, the temperature would only rise 2.2 degrees C.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Got any sort of reference for that claim? Given land use trends, I very much doubt that is the case. The US is second in the world in CO2 emissions, and first per-capita. If we were sequestering more than we were emitting, why are global CO2 levels still going up? Gonna blame it all on the Chinese?





Again and again show it ....and the again in a few month show it again...maybe a sticky is needed.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

greg273 said:


> The US is second in the world in CO2 emissions, and first per-capita.


Are you sure about that? Unless I'm misinterpreting these lists, it looks like Arab nations far surpass the US in per-capita rates.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC

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


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

greg273 said:


> Got any sort of reference for that claim? Given land use trends, I very much doubt that is the case. The US is second in the world in CO2 emissions, and first per-capita. If we were sequestering more than we were emitting, why are global CO2 levels still going up? Gonna blame it all on the Chinese?


I posted it all here before...government figures, and university research. It's all in the numbers! And they don't match up! I'm gonna blame it on the unbalanced environmentalists pushing their elitist agenda!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> I posted it all here before...government figures, and university research. It's all in the numbers! And they don't match up!


 Wait, NOW you're going to believe 'government figures'??? Lol.,...I'l believe it when i see it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Txsteader said:


> Are you sure about that? Unless I'm misinterpreting these lists, it looks like Arab nations far surpass the US in per-capita rates.
> 
> http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita


 Yep, my bad, you're correct. I was looking at a list of the largest countries, not ALL countries. The Gulf oil producing states, with their large oil output and relatively small populations, indeed lead the list of 'per capita' CO2 emissions.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Right now mt. redoubt...it is a few miles away and it is naturally putting nastiest in the air.. Nature is stronger than man...on average 500 volcanos are spewing ash or gasses daily... I just have a front row seat to a few of them...I have watched them go off. 

Cars put out nothing to a volcano....and it is normal.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ya really and if co2 was stopped completely around the world, in 100 years NO DIFFERENCE in temps would be experienced, NONE. No lowering of temps at all. Man just can't stop slow down or even lessen what Mother Nature is doing and has done for 4.3 billion years.


What do you want to bet that sea level will continue to rise?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Thanks I needed that laugh on a Sunday night. Thank You once again.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Thanks I needed that laugh on a Sunday night. Thank You once again.


That's the biggest sticking point of denying the warming trend. Sea level is rising. The rise is measurable, and the rise is steady. It's really undeniable.

It's one thing to deny that man has caused the warming trend, but denying the warming trend is frivolous.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, it is rising.....islands come and go and have so...because of this. Seashells and marine life remains are found where once the waters reached.

The land I am on....once underwater....over two forest ago


Fires from eons past leave the story in the layers.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

I shouldn't say this because it will undoubtedly be misunderstood around here, but there is still a lot of debate about climate change within the scientific community. It's just that the question of the warming trend isn't being debated.

The topics up for debate are the magnitude of where temperatures might go, what we should do about it, and how much impact corrective action might have. Those are all legitimate questions, and there are varying opinions on those topics.

If conservatives want to debate climate change then we should move the discussion to reasonable and debatable topics, not whether climate change is happening.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Nevada, I don't believe those kinds of folks want to talk about the effects and consequences of the climate changes that are happening now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya its been changing for 4.3 billion years. Continents are still moving, mountains are still rising, and others are being worn down, death valley is still spreading and sinking, the art is still going round the sun and does that little wobble at the same time, moon is moving away from us at the rate of a inch and a half a year, earth is slowing up in its rotation. Earth is in constant change. Nothing new here move on.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Right now mt. redoubt...it is a few miles away and it is naturally putting nastiest in the air.. Nature is stronger than man...on average 500 volcanos are spewing ash or gasses daily... I just have a front row seat to a few of them...I have watched them go off.
> 
> Cars put out nothing to a volcano....and it is normal.


Betcha ya can see Russia from your house, too.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Betcha ya can see Russia from your house, too.


 Ya that sure was blown out of proportion by the hateful media wasn't it?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Affter doing some reading on this subject, and about the conflicting opinions of scientists, the mystery of the 'climate change hiatus' (which even NASA scientists don't understand) and the way raw data is 'massaged,' I have arrived at the following observation:

There seems to be a belief deeply rooted in the human psyche that if we become too sophisticated -- if we get above our raisin' --or otherwise defy the gods, we'll be punished in some way. This beliefs is expressed in myths and parables across cultures, from Prometheus stealing fire to the story of the Garden of Eden. And very often there is an element of environmental destruction in the punishment that is or will be meted out -- floods, fires, drought, plagues of locusts, etc. 

It's interesting to note that the supposition that humans could bring ecological disaster down upon themselves long predated our actual ability to do so by human means (that is, prior to the invention of things like the internal combustion engine or the hydrogen bomb). So clearly it's not a belief that is rooted in rationality, but in something else altogether. 

I think a lot of people have seized upon this free-floating anxiety and affixed it to the notion of 'climate change.' The 'god' meting out punishment in this case is, of course, Mother Nature. 

I find it telling that when scientists in the 1970s were warning of a coming global ice age, they recommended some of the same strategies that are offered today to combat global warming, such as reducing emissions, banning IC engines, and even population control. Sound familiar?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Paumon said:


> Nevada, I don't believe those kinds of folks want to talk about the effects and consequences of the climate changes that are happening now.



Wait do you mean the Global Warming we are suffering here in south central Pennsylvania?

Or did you conveniently decide to use "climate change" as the new term?

Isn't it funny how the same so called scientists said we were heading for an "ice age" in the 1970's, then it changed to "global warming" now it's "climate change".

Is this anything like the "New" and "Improved" versions of products on the grocery store shelves?

Sorry I won't believe any of this garbage when the only way to fix if is;
1. give government more power and control over our lives thus taking more Freedom and violating our Rights.
2. can only be fixed with more/higher taxes.. Of course handled by the Government.


This is just like the "war" on smokers.. The government will never ban smoking simply because of the Billions they get in taxes.. This is the same deal. They will continually claim some climatic change is coming and the only way to solve it is to give up your Freedom, by living where we say or how we say and higher more taxation.. 

All I see is propaganda being spouted as if it is fact or truth..


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Yes, there is more water vapor than CO2 in the atmosphere. No one disputes that. However that is totally irrelevant to mankinds role in increasing CO2 levels. Best estimates is that CO2 adds anywhere from 10-25% of the total 'greenhouse effect'. Now what do you think will happen if that concentration doubles? Do you think the global temps will go up, or down?


Nothing will happen. It will be up to the sun, and what it is doing. Do you truly believe that, as a billions of years old earth believer, the climate has always been constant? Because what you are saying, is just that. 

I know your reply will be something along the lines of, "but the earth has never warmed up with such speed before!".

Um, no.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

I always find it funny that we can not use a decade of brutal cold winter to fight back. But they can use a few months of drought,a year with low snowfall on the Swiss Alps, or a single hurricane, to batter home that the earth is warming, and we are all doomed.

Even when the great lakes record a stinking heavy and nearly complete ice cover: These people actually in their twisted minds, say that it is because of GLOBAL WARMING that this is happening, and is further proof of such warming.

An ice storm, a hot Australian summer, a drought in a dry area, a one year drought in the South East US.

Those are fair game for the warmists to use as proof. But if we "deniers" dare use a decade of colder than normal winters; Chilly summers that are barely able to ripen wheat in time; The complete lack of summer temperatures over 90F, in 15 years ( where there used to be many), in areas that according to their models are warming the fastest, well, it is out of order to use these examples. Cuz well, they are prime examples of "climate change", and proves their "science".

Climate change people, win no matter what the weather. Even when there is concrete proof that gross altering and blatant lies about records have been made.

BECAUSE THEY PREACH THAT CLIMATE IS CONSTANT AND CAN POINT TO ANY WEATHER ITEM AND SAY IT IS PROOF!!!!

They can't lose. Like a bunch of kids who cheat in soccer, by throwing the ball into the net rather than kicking it. And counting those goals.

A bunch of kids....


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Water levels have changed before leaving marine life recored in fossilized the deserts rocks on my tops an in the great plains o America.

Long be for Henry ford, before the industrial revolution.


----------



## Roadking (Oct 8, 2009)

Got marine fossils of here in the mountains of Pa.

Matt


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Nothing will happen. It will be up to the sun, and what it is doing. Do you truly believe that, as a billions of years old earth believer, the climate has always been constant? Because what you are saying, is just that.
> 
> I know your reply will be something along the lines of, "but the earth has never warmed up with such speed before!".
> 
> Um, no.


 You think doubling CO2 will cause no change in temperatures?? lol Something tells me you know more about farming than climatology.
And obviously climate never stays constant over the long term. Which of course has nothing to do with whether mankind is altering the climate in the present day by changing the composition of the atmosphere.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> You think doubling CO2 will cause no change in temperatures?? lol Something tells me you know more about farming than climatology.
> And obviously climate never stays constant over the long term. Which of course has nothing to do with whether mankind is altering the climate in the present day by changing the composition of the atmosphere.


I never said that. I said it would depend on what the sun is doing at that point.

Climate and farming as so intricately intertwined, you bet I know a fair amount about both. If not you may as well not farm, or run a weather station in your back yard...


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I shouldn't say this because it will undoubtedly be misunderstood around here, but there is still a lot of debate about climate change within the scientific community. It's just that the question of the warming trend isn't being debated.
> 
> The topics up for debate are the magnitude of where temperatures might go, what we should do about it, and how much impact corrective action might have. Those are all legitimate questions, and there are varying opinions on those topics.
> 
> If conservatives want to debate climate change then we should move the discussion to reasonable and debatable topics, not whether climate change is happening.


I don't deny the climate has become warmer. That would be ridiculous to deny the obvious. But I'll argue that the scientific community isn't indicating any questions in their minds as to where temps might go or what we should do about it. And that's where they're going to get serious push-back......because all they've got in those regards is speculation.

Yet, to hear loonies like Al Gore and certain politicans, we're all gonna die in the next ......oh, wait, we should already be dead. :runforhills:

Now, I'm all for a clean environment. And between making things more energy efficient and sending all our manufacturing overseas, the US has reduced their CO2 (energy related) emissions back down almost to 1992 levels.

The problem is that globally, the largest polluter has merely shifted rather than global levels being reduced. But progressives, with the help of Obama and the UN, would have the US penalized.......not for current emissions, but for _past_ emissions that are going to manifest in _future_ harm, that may or may not happen.

:umno: The way I see it, this is just a scam to *redistribute* Americans' money. They figured the subject was so far above most peoples' heads that there'd be little argument, because everyone trusts the government and scientists. 

Again, :umno:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Roadking said:


> Got marine fossils of here in the mountains of Pa.
> 
> Matt


 Yep, and thats because much of present day Pennsylvania was once a shallow ocean basin before tectonic forces uplifted it. Which, again, has nothing to do with global warming.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

That is all it is tax and then tax some more and in the end the only thing that will be gained is the people losing their money in a big scam. CO2 even if stopped would not lower the temps. Nothing man does or can do or will do can change that. Earth will go right on doing what she wants to on HER time table. not mans.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> I never said that. I said it would depend on what the sun is doing at that point.


 Ok, lets assume the sun stays about the same and CO2 doubles. Then what?


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

greg273 said:


> Ok, lets assume the sun stays about the same and CO2 doubles. Then what?


Sorry, I would never make a projection assuming anything. Nothing is constant, so it is impossible. That is the problem with warmists. Too many assumptions...


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Right now mt. redoubt...it is a few miles away and it is naturally putting nastiest in the air.. Nature is stronger than man...on average 500 volcanos are spewing ash or gasses daily... I just have a front row seat to a few of them...I have watched them go off.
> 
> Cars put out nothing to a volcano....and it is normal.


 Every time this debate comes up, someone always brings up volcanoes... got news for ya, mankinds burning of fossil fuels FAR outweighs the CO2 contributions of volcanoes. Most of what a volcano puts out is particulate matter that actually BLOCKS sunlight, not CO2 that warms the globe. 


> Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, *volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.*
> This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, *the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. *


 http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

farmerDale said:


> Sorry, I would never make a projection assuming anything. Nothing is constant, so it is impossible. That is the problem with warmists. Too many assumptions...


 Sounds like youre doing plenty of assuming yourself. Assuming NOTHING will happen if CO2 rises. Too bad science and basic chemistry is NOT on your side.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Greg what of the fossils in the great plains of on mountain tops,

Thing in nature ebb and flow. Man can't be that blame for these things when man was not here.

It happened without man thus scientifically when the cycle repeats is it man or nature.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yes, there are natural reasons and man made reasons that effect climate change.

Just as we should be working towards minimizing our impact on polluting our environment or killing off plant and animal species we should also doing what we can to minimize our contribution towards climate change.

Arguing about how much climate change we cause because of industrialization is a waste of time. We know we do, so we should make every effort to minimize it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Nothing man does or can do or will do can change that. Earth will go right on doing what she wants to on HER time table. not mans.


Scientists disagree. Where did you learn that man can't impact climate?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

farmerDale said:


> I always find it funny that we can not use a decade of brutal cold winter to fight back. But they can use a few months of drought,a year with low snowfall on the Swiss Alps, or a single hurricane, to batter home that the earth is warming, and we are all doomed.
> 
> Even when the great lakes record a stinking heavy and nearly complete ice cover: These people actually in their twisted minds, say that it is because of GLOBAL WARMING that this is happening, and is further proof of such warming.
> 
> ...





Nevada said:


> What do you want to bet that sea level will continue to rise?





Nevada said:


> That's the biggest sticking point of denying the warming trend. Sea level is rising. The rise is measurable, and the rise is steady. It's really undeniable.
> 
> It's one thing to deny that man has caused the warming trend, but denying the warming trend is frivolous.





greg273 said:


> Every time this debate comes up, someone always brings up volcanoes... got news for ya, mankinds burning of fossil fuels FAR outweighs the CO2 contributions of volcanoes. Most of what a volcano puts out is particulate matter that actually BLOCKS sunlight, not CO2 that warms the globe.
> 
> http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html



That is with out blow outs.. just the puffing like redoubt is doing now.

When it blows the number jumps. On any given date 500 land ...note not including underwater volcanos are puffing each day.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> Yes, there are natural reasons and man made reasons that effect climate change.
> 
> Just as we should be working towards minimizing our impact on polluting our environment or killing off plant and animal species we should also doing what we can to minimize our contribution towards climate change.
> 
> Arguing about how much climate change we cause because of industrialization is a waste of time. We know we do, so we should make every effort to minimize it.


Man is nature.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Greg what of the fossils in the great plains of on mountain tops,


 See post #129, or better yet, brush up on Earth Science 101.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Man is nature.


What man builds is not nature.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No...you have missed out on shark teeth embedded in mountain tops in the mountains in the west. I'm he black mt. Has many.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Using the excuse that it happens in nature is like telling your child not to poop in the middle of the front room and getting the response " but the dog just did"

We are humans and we know better. We even try to to teach nature. ( dogs )


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

> The reality is this: The world is* 1.08 degrees cooler *than it was in 1998.
> 
> Just take a look at this chart from Remote Sensing Systems, which provides data to NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations.
> As The Wall Street Journal reported, &#8220;The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction.&#8221;
> ...


https://w3.newsmax.com/LP/Finance/CTI/Dark-Winter?ns_mail_uid=474008&ns_mail_job=1608537_02162015&s=al&dkt_nbr=udmcfczm


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> No...you have missed out on shark teeth embedded in mountain tops in the mountains in the west. I'm he black mt. Has many.


 Again, see post #129. Tectonic forces have uplifted areas that were formerly below sea level, which, again, has nothing to do with mankinds role in the current warm up. You said it yourself, mankind IS nature. And if one part of nature wants to burn 200million years+ of buried carbon and release it into the atmosphere, then so be it. But don't pretend there is no consequences for our actions.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> What do you want to bet that sea level will continue to rise?


The sea level in general has been rising since the end of the last ice age.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> The sea level in general has been rising since the end of the last ice age.


 Yes indeed. Now add a potential doubling of atmospheric CO2 to the mix and what do you think will happen? Greenhouse gasses are called that for a reason, they are transparent to visible sunlight, yet relatively opaque to re-emitted longwave thermal radiation. Of course we should be thankful for them, but realize increasing them has consequences. And hey i'm not saying all the consequences will be bad, just realize our actions WILL have reactions...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

No, had you done what science requested study you would know of prehistoric oceans that where covering the Midwest of America.  But your failure to seek knowledge has. You vomiting sound bite from liars.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> No, had you done what science requested study you would know of prehistoric oceans that where covering the Midwest of America. But your failure to seek knowledge has. You vomiting sound bite from liars.


 And you being in Alaska know there would not be this in your state if it had not been for Melting Glaciers, which now means Alaska has 3 million lakes~!


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> No, had you done what science requested study you would know of prehistoric oceans that where covering the Midwest of America. But your failure to seek knowledge has. You vomiting sound bite from liars.


 I'm aware of the geology of the midwest. I can look outside my door and see sedimentary layers of rock laid down when illinois was a basin in a shallow sea. I can go down into the creek and find corals, clams, and numerous extinct sea creature fossils by spending about 2 minutes searching. What 'sound bite from liars' are you talking about?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> And you being in Alaska know there would not be this in your state if it had not been for Melting Glaciers, which now means *Alaska has 3 million lakes*~!


Which is a huge blessing for America. Because when the lower 48 runs out of water they'll be able to take the water from Alaska for free and Alaska will stop selling water to China like they're doing now.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well they ain't going to get any go the water in the greats Lakes that is a promise~!
There was talk back in the 80's when I lived in AZ they wanted to built a huge pipeline to the GL.
Hmmmm Pipeline now where have I heard that word. Oh yes to transport OIL. Ya thats it.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Your lack of knowledge that ocean levels and locations have changed...I never got to ask in class if the fertile plains were quality farming lands due to minerals from once Bing and ocean bottom, and if so would the bread basket of our nation under heavenly Growning become ungrowable in the future.

Man is nothing when thinking of the sun and the rest of the universe. 

I haven't a clue as to your age but it seems you missed out on the ice age fear period follow by the silent pauses of global warming....to climate change.

Change in nature is NORMALCY. Adaption such as using fuels allows intelligence life to migrate, to survive or stay put and survive.

Man is on a rollercoaster and nature has the controls.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Roadking said:


> Got marine fossils of here in the mountains of Pa.
> 
> Matt


Must of had a big flood once upon a time :idea:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Which is a huge blessing for America. Because when the lower 48 runs out of water they'll be able to take the water from Alaska for free and Alaska will stop selling water to China like they're doing now.



Selling or talked about.

I might talk about what it would be to be single.....but that would not make me single

By the way the great lakes and Canada has also talked about selling water to other nations. But is it happening no.....just like gw,or the ice age, or climate change. It is not a true reality.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Well they ain't going to get any go the water in the greats Lakes that is a promise~!
> There was talk back in the 80's when I lived in AZ they wanted to built a huge pipeline to the GL.
> Hmmmm Pipeline now where have I heard that word. Oh yes to transport OIL. Ya thats it.


I doubt it. By then there won't be any fresh clean water left in the great lakes either.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Thank the Lord we can clean and filter..desalination is a reality. 

That must really rain on the doom and gloomers that humans adapt making use of nature's bounty. Be it water, fuels, land minerals.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> Selling or talked about.
> 
> I might talk about what it would be to be single.....but that would not make me single
> 
> By the way the great lakes and Canada has also talked about selling water to other nations. But is it happening no.....just like gw,or the ice age, or climate change. It is not a true reality.


Alaska is already selling fresh water to China. They've been shipping it in bulk to China for a few years now.

Canada can't sell bulk water to other nations. Only limited amounts of bottled water in small bottles is allowed to be sold. That law has been in effect as of 2010 when the Canada Water Conservation Act went into effect.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> I shouldn't say this because it will undoubtedly be misunderstood around here, but there is still a lot of debate about climate change within the scientific community. It's just that the question of the warming trend isn't being debated.
> 
> The topics *up for debate are the magnitude of where temperatures might go, what we should do about it, and how much impact corrective action might have.* Those are all legitimate questions, and there are varying opinions on those topics.
> 
> If conservatives want to debate climate change then we should move the discussion to reasonable and debatable topics, not whether climate change is happening.


You haven't been paying attention. In all these GW threads, it has been repeatedly said that there is not a dispute that the climate is changing. For most of us, we have long since moved on CC is a fact of life. Earth's climate is in a constant state of flux, repeatedly going from dinosaur hot to ice age cold. The Q is why and once we understand why, to ask if it is within man's power to influence in our favor? 

I agree with the part above I bolded.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Paumon said:


> Nevada, I don't believe those kinds of folks want to talk about the effects and consequences of the climate changes that are happening now.


Actually, it is your side of the debate that does not wish to discuss the effects. How many times has it been asked within HT what good could come from warmer temps?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

kasilofhome said:


> Thank the Lord *we can clean and filter..desalination is a reality. *
> 
> That must really rain on the doom and gloomers that humans adapt making use of nature's bounty. Be it water, fuels, land minerals.


There you go now, you're thinking ahead. :thumb: That's the positive way to discuss the effects and consequences of climate change that's happening now.

It sure beats dwelling on things of little consequence from the distant past.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> Change in nature is NORMALCY. Adaption such as using fuels allows intelligence life to migrate, to survive or stay put and survive.
> 
> Man is on a rollercoaster and nature has the controls.


 I agree, change is constant. But you just said a few posts ago that man IS nature. Why not admit our actions have consequences and move on? Personally, I think civilization will have little trouble adapting to a warmer world. Although I also recognize our probable role in the current situation. 
As far as sea level,of course it has changed in the past, due to climate and tectonic events shaping the surface of the earth. Land subsides, rises, the ocean basins change, glaciers hold water, glaciers release water... That still has nothing to do with whether or not we are altering the climate by altering the composition of the atmosphere.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Do you freak out and seek to solve the "problem" that an infant grows and changes into an adult no longer fitting into its onies or do you enjoy the stages of life adapting to them with our fear and trepidation.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

What do you do if someone wants to feed that infant something that poisons it? Let nature take it's course?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

When a horde of rabbits or grasshoppers grow in population that agriculture is destroyed....I know that in time. The lynx will up their numbers and the grasshoppers depopulate.

I worry not about a gain of salt that bounces of my plate. Man's impact is like a grain of salt.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover 

Well, I guess you need fear in your life. Enjoy your doom and gloom.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

DEKE01 said:


> Actually, it is your side of the debate that does not wish to discuss the effects. How many times has it been asked within HT what good could come from warmer temps?


 I can think of some positives to a warmer world, but thats not what this thread is about... its about whether AGW is the 'greatest scientific scandal of all time'. So far, the proponents of that conclusion have responded with a bunch of off-topic red herrings, like sea fossils on mountaintops. I guess they think the sea was 5000ft higher in the past,sorry, but from all the evidence it appears sea level itself has varied by no more than around 600ft for the last 4 billion years or so. Now the land itself has varied by MUCH more than that, but thats a different story, and not relevant to the topic. (which, I get the feeling may be just about played out....)


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't fear it. I deal with it. Like you would if a bear was trying to come through your door.

Climate change and it's impact may be longer term but it is the responsibility of those that cause those damages to find ways to fix it.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Actually, it is your side of the debate that does not wish to discuss the effects. How many times has it been asked within HT what good could come from warmer temps?


I don't know. How many times has it been asked? :huh:

Lets talk about what good could come from warmer temperatures.

I'm really loving the winters that I've been getting here for the past 7 years. We haven't had a winter since 2008. I've been gardening and planting stuff since the middle of January this year. In spite of there being so little daylight at this time of year everything is several inches above the ground. The honey bees are going right bonkers in all the flowers.

I'd love it if a new topic was started about what could be some of the benefits of global warming but I think it would be necessary to discuss the negatives too. Like what happens in the summers with droughts and wild fires, and dealing with heat for societies that aren't accustomed to heat? For example, I lost 4 of my close neighbours just last summer to extreme summer heat related deaths because their bodies couldn't cope with it. People here are not acclimated yet to extreme heat and staying indoors with air conditioning is not something that people are accustomed to up here. It's unheard of here. Like being imprisoned indoors. That is a situation that needs to be addressed for the future.

So lets talk about things like that.

Speaking of positives, I should go now because the sun is shining, it's lovely and warm and I still have 4 more flats of bedding plants to get into the ground before 3 o'clock.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

They lacked the supplies to deal with life. Be it knowledge to seek coolness or water.
Such a large number of people around you.....very odd.

In all of public buildings in Alaska we have cooling systems...even in homes...welcomed used but there.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

:dj:


greg273 said:


> I agree, change is constant. But you just said a few posts ago that man IS nature. Why not admit our actions have consequences and move on? Personally, I think civilization will have little trouble adapting to a warmer world. Although I also recognize our probable role in the current situation.
> As far as sea level,of course it has changed in the past, due to climate and tectonic events shaping the surface of the earth. Land subsides, rises, the ocean basins change, glaciers hold water, glaciers release water... That still has nothing to do with whether or not we are altering the climate by altering the composition of the atmosphere.




And you still have not looked up about the waters former placement.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Thank the Lord we can clean and filter..desalination is a reality.


Yes it's a reality, but it's expensive and has problems of it's own.

I've done some RO projects in refineries for boiler feed water production. It's expensive. Membrane packs are costly and have to be replaced regularly. The turn-down capabilities are not good, since deviating from the optimum throughput by adjusting pressure can impact water quality. Discharged brine is also a problem, since it can't always be put down a drain in large quantities. RO water is also, by definition, corrosive so expensive stainless pipe is required to handle the product water.

The only time I knowingly used RO water for tap water was when I lived in Jeddah. Consuming RO water has certain health problems, since it can rob your body of minerals just to stabilize itself. The city added minerals to their RO water for that reason. Adding minerals also had the added advantage of making the water less corrosive.

RO desalination isn't the silver bullet many people think it is. If you have to then you have to, but it's going to cost you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Oceans of kansas
Ancient seas of north America
Or whale fossilized in the mountains of the andies......5000 feet


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

So, you agree there are working solutions now and more to come I think considering humans growth in knowledge.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Oceans of kansas
> Ancient seas of north America
> Or whale fossilized in the mountains of the andies......5000 feet


"The Seaway was created as *the Farallon tectonic plate subducted under the North American Plate during the Cretaceous.* As plate convergence proceeded, the younger and more buoyant lithosphere of the Farallon Plate subducted at a shallow angle, in what is known as a "flat slab". This shallowly subducting slab exerted traction on the base of the lithosphere, pulling it down and producing dynamic topography at the surface that caused the opening of the Western Interior Seaway.[1] This depression and the high eustatic sea levels existing during the Cretaceous allowed waters from the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Gulf of Mexico in the south to meet and flood the central lowlands, forming a sea that transgressed (grew) and regressed (receded) over the course of the Cretaceous."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

That is nature. Man releasing CO2 at escalated levels is not nature. Man obviously knows better. We know what damage we are causing.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Is it not natural for grasshoppers to travel destroying vegetation.

Is not natural for eagles to care for only the strongest of two hatching.

Is it not natural for kudzu to overtake other plants.

Man is as much nature as any creature.

Man did not create carbon dioxide it is a natural gas that travels thru many phases and very need for life...carbon is the cornerstone of life. And is transformed in nature and in man using it.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

kasilofhome said:


> :dj:
> 
> 
> 
> And you still have not looked up about the waters former placement.


 I'm aware of the Interior Seaway that existed millions of years ago, that is high school level geology you're talking about there, and besides that, it is irrelevant to the topic of global warming. Unless you're trying to say that the ocean rose up 5000 feet and deposited whale carcasses on the mountains... which of course is NOT what happened, the whales died in the sea, and the entire MOUNTAIN rose up, slowly over millions of years. 
Still wondering what that has to do with the topic at hand.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Increasing carbon dioxide after leaving an ice age will aid in food production maximization. Plants grow better and thus are nature's answer to those in fear. The bio mass is fuel for the future. In as much as these levels have been known to have happened before man.....nothing is new...


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Has man yet to move or raised a mountain....nature has.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Man is nature, what man builds and destroys is not. Man has escalated the changes and ravages on nature. Nature does not release carbon dioxide at any rate close to what man's machines does.

Man has learned to turn nature against itself, to hold it back or let it go (dams, fighting forest fires, killing off to many animals) and change the course of nature in ways that are not good for the earth and the natural cycle of things.

Man knows better. In fact homesteaders who live on the land and from the land should know better than most what damage our machines due to this planet.

Just because nature can do damage itself does not mean that we the higher species need to do it as well.

Nature kills. Animals kill each other. We are humans, we strive to be better than that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Has man yet to move or raised a mountain....nature has.


Every single day. Just up the road from me they are taking down a mountain and moving it down the road, one dumptuck at a time. It's called mining.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

I'm amazed when people think they can either maneuver Mother Nature or minimize natural effects in their thinking. I wonder how many AGW believers think the Earth is smaller than the Sun?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's the biggest sticking point of denying the warming trend. Sea level is rising. The rise is measurable, and the rise is steady. It's really undeniable.
> 
> It's one thing to deny that man has caused the warming trend, but denying the warming trend is frivolous.


I have a house at the beach....i haven't noticed a rise in the sea level....why not?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

A bird makes a nest are we humans not to make use of the earth.

Maybe if four people HAD invested in a air conditioner, they would be alive. Does d they avoid it because it would only add to the use of fuel.

And
Jeff you will see a rise you just have to move the numbers closer together on YOUR measuring stick.....that's what the the scientists do to prove what they are paid to prove.

That mining job might seem big but in reference it is nothing compared to the source of nature. Hard to Believe but even when earth is scaled to the universe...those peaks and valleys are as smooth as a glass marble.

When carbon dioxide in the past plant grow abound. History is more than just a hundred years when focusing thru a microscope it is hard to see the big picture.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Cause it hasn't and if there is any rise at all it would be in the 1 centimeter range or 10 at the most not the several inches the GW folks seem to have in the book of nonsense rules, and regulations that are taxing mankind up the his head, and making it hard on companies to expand or grow like they want to. Tax tax tax, Throw money at something that is invisible, but is so on the front burner of the gloom and doomers.
That is what the left is so good at is to throw money at something, and then is that don't work, throw some more. And in the case of global warming folks Tax and lie and exaggerate more.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Cause it hasn't and if there is any rise at all it would be in the 1 centimeter range or 10 at the most not the several inches


It's no where near 1 cm. Average rise is more like 3 mm per year, but that's up from 1.7 mm per year.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

greg273 said:


> I can think of some positives to a warmer world, but thats not what this thread is about... its about whether AGW is the 'greatest scientific scandal of all time'. So far, the proponents of that conclusion have responded with a bunch of off-topic red herrings, like sea fossils on mountaintops. I guess they think the sea was 5000ft higher in the past,sorry, but from all the evidence it appears sea level itself has varied by no more than around 600ft for the last 4 billion years or so. Now the land itself has varied by MUCH more than that, but thats a different story, and not relevant to the topic. (which, I get the feeling may be just about played out....)


Agreed, this thread isn't about the net effects of AGW (if AGW exists) and I don't know why Paumon brought up net effects after yelling at me in another thread for daring to think it a relevant Q. This thread also isn't about sea levels, so I've stayed out of that portion of the debate. 

I agree it is about the scandal of fraud GW data and the most I have heard to counter the claim of data fraud is that the guy who made the claim gets paid by big oil.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yes it's a reality, but it's expensive and has problems of it's own.
> 
> I've done some RO projects in refineries for boiler feed water production. It's expensive. Membrane packs are costly and have to be replaced regularly. The turn-down capabilities are not good, since deviating from the optimum throughput by adjusting pressure can impact water quality. Discharged brine is also a problem, since it can't always be put down a drain in large quantities. RO water is also, by definition, corrosive so expensive stainless pipe is required to handle the product water.
> 
> ...


It is cheaper and more energy efficient to drink purified toilet water, like you do in Vegas. There really isn't a whole lot of need for RO if people could get beyond their mental hangups. In modern sewage treatment plants, the water that exits is usually cleaner than the water entering the fresh water treatment plant. LA and San Diego would surely benefit if they would quit dumping trillions of gallons of treated sewage water into the ocean each year and instead route the former black water back into their white water system. 

And that is why I don't ever believe the hype about running out of water.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

arabian knight said:


> Ya that sure was blown out of proportion by the hateful media wasn't it?


And the kicker is, she never said it. It was Tina Fey on SNL..


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nevada said:


> It's no where near 1 cm.


Do you have to tell that to the ladies that often? :hand:





:happy:


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Wlover said:


> Every single day. Just up the road from me they are taking down a mountain and moving it down the road, one dumptuck at a time. It's called mining.


Cute, but I think you know what he meant.
So that is moving a mountain? Will that mountain be 'over there' just like it was b/4?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Cute, but I think you know what he meant.
> So that is moving a mountain? Will that mountain be 'over there' just like it was b/4?


The original mountain as most of our mountains, was made inches at a time as the tectonic plates moved upwards. Millions of more years covered them with soil and vegetation and they became the mountains we know now.

That mountain up the road that is being moved will face the same sort of changes as it slowly becomes a different mountain because we all know that neither mother nature or man will make the same mountain twice.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Wlover said:


> The original mountain as most of our mountains, was made inches at a time as the tectonic plates moved upwards. Millions of more years covered them with soil and vegetation and they became the mountains we know now.
> 
> That mountain up the road that is being moved will face the same sort of changes as it slowly becomes a different mountain because we all know that neither mother nature or man will make the same mountain twice.


Yes. And lets mention again there is the matter of time. 

What took nature millions of years to build up into a mountain takes man a miniscule fraction of a fraction of that time to blast it into little pieces and destroy it.

Likewise it's taking man a fraction of nature's time to contribute other changes and destructions to help speed up changes in the climate that would naturally take much longer to happen.

There is nothing _natural_ about the speed at which climate changes are being hastened along today.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Paumon said:


> Yes. And lets mention again there is the matter of time.
> 
> What took nature millions of years to build up into a mountain takes man a miniscule fraction of a fraction of that time to blast it into little pieces and destroy it.
> 
> ...



:rotfl:

Lets take *Quelccaya Ice Cap

*The ice is melting quickly which is exposing almost perfectly preserved, unfossilized plant specimens that have been dated to 5,200 years. 

This tells you that the glacier advanced quickly and now has retreated quickly.. 
If it had advanced slowly these plants would have been ground up and fossilized..

So to say that the speed isn't natural is wrong.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Paumon said:


> There is nothing _natural_ about the speed at which climate changes are being hastened along today.


 And you know this how? Toucan't just go back a few hundred years, or even a few thousand years. 10,000? Nope Nobody KNOWS. 
Is there records going back 4.3 billion Years???
NOPE.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

beowoulf90 said:


> :rotfl:
> 
> Lets take *Quelccaya Ice Cap
> 
> ...


 I sure agree with that. Nobody can know for certain Wow this is getting way out there now. If some are bent on thinking that way. Just because something seems to be speeding up now and it never happened before I needed that one to lighten up my late evening for sure.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

arabian knight said:


> And you know this how? Toucan't just go back a few hundred years, or even a few thousand years. 10,000? Nope Nobody KNOWS.
> Is there records going back 4.3 billion Years???
> NOPE.


I just am dieing to know just how old someone is cause to know what is natural about the speed of climate change.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I guess this is a pointless discussion. The idea that you have to be as old as the world to know the speed of climate change is the funniest thing I read this week.

A bit of simple education about science would tell you about things like tree rings, ice cores and a few other things that can give you the climate history of the earth.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Wlover said:


> I guess this is a pointless discussion. The idea that you have to be as old as the world to know the speed of climate change is the funniest thing I read this week.
> 
> A bit of simple education about science would tell you about things like tree rings, ice cores and a few other things that can give you the climate history of the earth.


A bit of simple education about science will teach you that without direct observation, nothing is set in stone, and assumptions are made. Until such time more complete, observed proof can be seen. 

Did you know ice layers do not necessarily mean a single year, but that layers can form with each snow event? Did you know if you dig into the snow in my back yard, it has distinct layers, and that if these layers were found on a glacier in Greenland, scientists would assume they were yearly layers?

Don't forget: IF we have only been here for thousands of years, but the earth is Billions of years old, a lot of assumptions have to be made to explain why things are the way they are, without direct observation.

Assumptions are made about how fast things occur. Sometimes they are accurate, sometimes not so much...


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

A minor example is the Mt. St. Helens eruption.

Had it NOT been observed, and mini canyons had not been SEEN forming in mere hours and days, I wonder what scientists would have deduced about the timeline, if say it had happened in 1480.

I always wonder about stuff like that...


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

beowoulf90 said:


> Lets take Quelccaya Ice Cap
> 
> The ice is melting quickly which is exposing almost perfectly preserved, unfossilized plant specimens that have been dated to 5,200 years.
> 
> ...


Okay. Certainly there are natural events that can happen quickly and alter the terrain and climate, like earthquakes and volcanoes and flash freezing events for example. I wouldn't dispute that. 

But so what? Does that mean that just because those events can happen quickly it excuses doing things that can make other natural events happen even faster?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

farmerDale said:


> A bit of simple education about science will teach you that without direct observation, nothing is set in stone, and assumptions are made. Until such time more complete, observed proof can be seen.
> 
> Did you know ice layers do not necessarily mean a single year, but that layers can form with each snow event? Did you know if you dig into the snow in my back yard, it has distinct layers, and that *if these layers were found on a glacier in Greenland, scientists would assume they were yearly layers*?
> 
> ...


No they wouldn't. Because if a layman like you and me knows that simple little fact you can bet your snow-booties that better trained and educated scientists studying glaciers are going to know that too, and a lot more, like how to tell the difference between daily, weekly, monthly and annual layers. Do you know how to tell the difference between daily, weekly, monthly and annual layers? I do and I'm not a scientist. Trained, educated scientists studying ice layers would be able to identify and tell you even more about it than I could.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Wlover said:


> I guess this is a pointless discussion. The idea that you have to be as old as the world to know the speed of climate change is the funniest thing I read this week.
> 
> A bit of simple education about science would tell you about things like tree rings, ice cores and a few other things that can give you the climate history of the earth.


There are some problems with the tree ring data. Read about it awhile back. Apparently in a particular area, there is a long span in recent history that the extrapolations don't match the actual recorded temperatures, and scientists aren't sure why. I believe the scientific solution has been to throw out all the data that's out of whack, while assuming the rest is still valid.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Another nature. Is not set to the atomic clock but rather is doing her own thing. It seem that some men are seeking to control mother nature and she is not bowing to man.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> *It seem that some men are seeking to control mother nature* and she is not bowing to man.


We call them engineers.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

And gene modifiers.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

willow_girl said:


> There are some problems with the tree ring data. Read about it awhile back. Apparently in a particular area, there is a long span in recent history that the extrapolations don't match the actual recorded temperatures, and scientists aren't sure why. I believe the scientific solution has been to throw out all the data that's out of whack, while assuming the rest is still valid.


There are problems and anomalies with all parts of science. That is why they don't take one opinion or one result and call it good. A good example of the premise of the article in the original post and the person who wrote it. One person and his opinion does not make for a good scientific result.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Paumon said:


> And gene modifiers.


 Ya just look how that has increased the crop yields. That is a Good thing in harsh weather patterns that come and go at different times.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And some say this winter is a change because of climate change HUMBUG.


> coldest air found in the Northern Hemisphere, and it's situated up in the Arctic in the bulk of the winter," Robinson says. *"But occasionally, a lobe of that will dip south above the jet stream and allow that *


BUT OCCASIONALLY is the key.

It Happens. Its Normal, Its cyclical, stuff happens, Man can not stop it, man can not slow it down man has no control over Normal.
Besides WHO knows WHAT IS Normal? Only the art knows and the is not predictable. It changes, weather patterns change, global weather patterns change thats Normal.



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-causing-freezing-temperatures-across-the-u-s/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And mammoths thought he was over mother earth.

Sorry but the final page of the books not finished.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> And mammoths thought he was over mother earth.
> 
> Sorry but the final page of the books not finished.


Okay, totally lost here.

What mammoth thought it was over mother earth and how would it tell you that?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> And some say this winter is a change because of climate change HUMBUG.
> 
> 
> BUT OCCASIONALLY is the key.
> ...


It's that _"occasionally"_ that I'm having a problem with because it's no longer occasionally. Occasionally means something that happens once in a while for only a short period of time and which doesn't reoccur with any kind of regular pattern.

That can't be said for what's been happening with the polar vortex for the past 4 years. There has been a regular pattern of it shifting out of it's usual place. Four years in a row so far. Starting at the same time. Shifting down into the exact same location each time over the eastern half of North America. (Why not over the western half, or over the Eurasian continent or over the Pacific Ocean?) 

The one difference is that each winter has progressively been more extreme with it than the one before. On both sides of the North American continent. Deepest, coldest miserable winter conditions in the east and lovely warm dry spring conditions in the west.

So after four years of it in a row there's no longer anything occasional about it, (and longer if you look at what's been happening in the west for the past 7 years) it's looking like it's become a regular pattern. If it happens again next winter and the winter after that and gets more extreme each winter then I'd say it's become a normal thing that everyone should be prepared for every year from now on.




> "The polar vortex is essentially the coldest air found in the Northern Hemisphere, and it's situated up in the Arctic in the bulk of the winter," Robinson says. "But occasionally, a lobe of that will dip south above the jet stream and allow that cold air down into the Middle Atlantic states.
> 
> Sometimes last winter, it was into the northern Plains."
> 
> ...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You have to think on the scale of Earths time not mans time. Occasionally means something entirely different when you are talking abut the time earth makes it. 
Quit thinking on man's term of things which has only been on this earth in a tick of a second compared to the the earths time. Earths time is a whole lot longer and way more complex than man can even imagine.
So there is no way one can tell say that this is not occasionally happening in the span of earths time.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

I don't agree with that AK. The climatologist who gave out that explanation missed out something vital in his explanation. I don't know if he was being simplistic because maybe he thought the reporter was too stupid to understand, or if he told the reporter the whole of it and the reporter just left out the information because maybe he thought the media consumers were too stupid to understand.

What he didn't say is what other climatologists and oceanographers have been explaining for the past 7 years, which is this (and I did explain this to you last year) ..... the Pacific Ocean is the engine that drives the planet's climate and effects the northern hemisphere's jet stream throughout the year. The Pacific Ocean is getting warmer and warmer each year and the rising heat from the Pacific in winter is what causes the high pressure fronts that effect the jet stream's sine wave pattern. 

The heat from the Pacific makes the jet stream move further north over the eastern Pacific and western NA continent and that heat forces the polar vortex from the Arctic to shift out of place and move south with the returning jet stream down over the eastern half of North America and the western part of the Atlantic Ocean. The heat from the Atlantic, which is also getting warmer but not as fast as the Pacific, then causes another high pressure front that lifts the jet stream north again and brings warmer temperatures over western Europe and then brings colder temperatures down over eastern Asia. It's an almost perfect sine wave pattern and as long as the Pacific Ocean continues to keep on warming up it's going to continue happening like this every year and bring the polar vortex down over eastern North America every year.

Now that is what other climatologists and oceanographers have been explaining and that is what the climatologist from your news report should also have been explaining instead of trying to make it sound like it's an occasional one-off thing.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Climate change folks seem to agree that there once was an ice age, the seem to agree that the earth has had different climates thru out it life.

But they think man is the cause of the climate today....man is not.

So why did earth under go radical changes be for man if Chang is not NORMALCY.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Climate change folks seem to agree that there once was an ice age, the seem to agree that the earth has had different climates thru out it life.
> 
> But they think man is the cause of the climate today....man is not.
> 
> So why did earth under go radical changes be for man if Chang is not NORMALCY.


Man is a contributor. Man is escalating the changes. You have no proof otherwise, science is proving man is causing climate changes. man knows better and can do something about it, so they should.

Just because there was an ice age or a warming does not mean that man has to cause another one. Just like we don't need to pollute or burn down every rain forest or fish out every fish in the sea. We know better


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Wlover said:


> Man is a contributor. *Man is escalating the changes*. You have no proof otherwise, *science is proving man is causing climate changes*. man knows better and can do something about it, so they should.
> 
> Just because there was an ice age or a warming does not mean that *man has to cause another one*. Just like we don't need to pollute or burn down every rain forest or fish out every fish in the sea. *We know* better


Can I get an Amen from my brothers and sisters in the sacred church of CC? Amen! Hallelujah! Amen!


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Hubris causes man to think he is what the sun revolves around.

What weather must we have, how much rain must we have....how large must our sodas top out at.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Man does things everyday that changes the course of life on this earth. You don't need to think the sun revolves around you to know the damage that man causes. I guess minimizing it and pretending that it is all *Nature* is a way of pretending we don't impact the earth we live on in negative ways that nature can not repair in a timeline that will not wipe out much of what mother nature created.

I guess it does not matter how many nukes we let off, or pesticides we pour into our lakes and rivers because mother nature will fix it all. We don't need to have any personal responsibility to take care of the earth.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yep and what of the effect of a butterfly flapping it wing.

What you seem to express ...from my point if view is fear. Fear of the unknow, of the next day.


Sometime a thing destroyed is from a perspective.

One might see a broken egg and another a chick or food.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wlover said:


> Man does things everyday that changes the course of life on this earth. You don't need to think the sun revolves around you to know the damage that man causes. I guess minimizing it and pretending that it is all *Nature* is a way of pretending we don't impact the earth we live on in negative ways that nature can not repair in a timeline that will not wipe out much of what mother nature created.
> 
> I guess it does not matter how many nukes we let off, or pesticides we pour into our lakes and rivers because mother nature will fix it all. We don't need to have any personal responsibility to take care of the earth.


Yes I agree man as the animal he is is not charged with the duty to care for the earth.....anymore than a bird or virus.

You speak of personal responsibility.....yet wish to mandated we are bow to you fears to the point we comply with your world view.

Punish those who burn coal....how many nukes are used daily.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Yes I agree man as the animal he is is not charged with the duty to care for the earth.....anymore than a bird or virus.
> 
> You speak of personal responsibility.....yet wish to mandated we are bow to you fears to the point we comply with your world view.
> 
> Punish those who burn coal....how many nukes are used daily.


Actually, I never said anyone should be punished or that you should bow to what fears you think I have.

You did say it all though. You think man is not charged with any duty to the earth. That speaks volumes.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Fines,penalties for failure to comply is a punishment.

Will someday will it be a severed head.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

Anyone who is religious or believes in any way the things that have been written in various holy scriptures knows that man has been commanded to be a good steward of the earth and take good care of it and all things on it.

A person doesn't have to be religious or to have read any holy scriptures to know that it just makes good sense to be a good steward of earth and that it's not healthy to foul your own nest. 

Even lower animals, birds and fish know that it's not wise to foul your own nest and those who do it end up getting punished for it by their superiors to teach them a lesson about cleanliness.

Mankind is the only animal that has certain members of its society who repeatedly throughout history have slipped up and ignored that sensible rule. I think they should reap the consequences of punishment from the rest of conscientious society.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Anyone who is religious or believes in any way the things that have been written in various holy scriptures knows that man has been commanded to be a good steward of the earth and take good care of it and all things on it.
> 
> A person doesn't have to be religious or to have read any holy scriptures to know that it just makes good sense to be a good steward of earth and that it's not healthy to foul your own nest.
> 
> ...


That said, most of us don't eat our young.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> That said, most of us don't eat our young.


That's true. Likewise with most animals. They don't eat their own young either. But they'll eat the young of other species. Humans will eat ALL animals including the young animals. When all is said and done, humans are the worst for not being very discriminating about what they'll eat or the harmful, destructive lengths they'll go to for the sake of greed and gluttony.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> That's true. Likewise with most animals. They don't eat their own young either. But they'll eat the young of other species. Humans will eat ALL animals including the young animals. When all is said and done, *humans are the worst* for not being very discriminating about what they'll eat or the harmful, destructive lengths they'll go to for the sake of greed and gluttony.


You are a human, right? Or from another planet? Or maybe just more evolved than the average person?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

HDRider said:


> You are a human, right? Or from another planet? Or maybe just more evolved than the average person?


I've yet to meet an environmentalist that didn't think they were better than everyone else! It's a type of Napoleon complex. They never see it, and really hate for it to be pointed out! Cause their never wrong! ound:


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> You are a human, right? Or from another planet? Or maybe just more evolved than the average person?


Why are you asking?

You were the one that asked this in post number 4 of this topic.



HDRider said:


> Where's a Paumon when you need one?


I didn't respond to it because it is dehumanizing, you weren't asking for a human, you were asking for a thing. Therefore I have to assume you don't believe that Paumon is a human but is something else that you needed.

I didn't even respond to the topic until it was several pages into the topic.

So why were you asking for a Paumon and what is it you need for a Paumon to say?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Paumon said:


> Why are you asking?
> 
> You were the one that asked this in post number 4 of this topic.
> 
> ...


I knew this subject was near and dear to your heart, and you opposed it with all your being. I wanted to hear your's or those of like mind's, rebuttal.

I was using Paumon as a collective term referring to those that think as you do. So not you, per se, but your belief.

So, are you human?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

HDRider said:


> So, are you human?


No, I'm not human. I'm Mother Nature incarnate in the physical form of a possessed computer.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Climate change folks seem to agree that there once was an ice age, the seem to agree that the earth has had different climates thru out it life.
> 
> But they think man is the cause of the climate today....man is not.
> 
> So why did earth under go radical changes be for man if Chang is not NORMALCY.


 These are the same tree huggers that once wanted every one to just hold hands and sign Kumbaya. Thing of it is it didn't work back in the 60's the hay day of the hippy movement and it doesn't work now either. They are more of these NIMBY folks but by golly they still use gas they still use oil, and still use paper. Never worked back then, and won't in this day in age.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Gosh , you guys still fighting about the government putting the screws to people to get $$$$ , even those that live off of Grants, oh no. So funny, so simple-hey look over there-Detroit is a wounderful socialists dream. VOTE for Liberials!!!!!!!!!! Detroit not enough? LA ? Soviet Union????


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya really you really want to see what the liberal way of living is like, take a video tour of Detroit, many youtube shows just what happens when you let government and unions run amok.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Paumon said:


> Anyone who is religious or believes in any way the things that have been written in various holy scriptures knows that man has been commanded to be a good steward of the earth and take good care of it and all things on it.
> 
> A person doesn't have to be religious or to have read any holy scriptures to know that it just makes good sense to be a good steward of earth and that it's not healthy to foul your own nest.
> 
> ...



Being a good steward is in the eye of the beholder. Using the raw materials..to meet real needs is being a good steward.. I see no difference between building a nest and insulating a den or storing nuts.... each makes use of what the can.

To say that coal and oil are off limits is poor stewardship from what I accept.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Ok, lets assume the sun stays about the same and CO2 doubles. Then what?


That's the point Greg. The sun is the largest single determinate of our climate. That through the oceans and the water vapor in the atmosphere determine our weather and our climate. Water vapor has CO2 by 60 times. CO2 as a factor in climate is BS. What it is, is a convenient scapegoat to justify wealth extraction and redistribution by pseudo science.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

for fun...Vostok ice core samples.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

As for looking to the bible for understand stewardship...

There is the story of the owner who divided money to his men in charge.

One buried the money out of fear of losing it and destroying wealth having nothing in the end

Another used the money and his sweat to improve the wealth by using it to grow it and to improve his lot.
.....


The man so filled with fear of losing the wealth was not rewarded as was the man who made used of what the owner had given him.

We have all the resources here on earth why leave them buried.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Wlover said:


> I guess this is a pointless discussion. The idea that you have to be as old as the world to know the speed of climate change is the funniest thing I read this week.
> 
> A bit of simple education about science would tell you about things like tree rings, ice cores and a few other things that can give you the climate history of the earth.



So if "science" it the end of the discussion..

Why are they backing off the Big Bang Theory?
We all know that the "science" proved it, as stated by many scientists.

Now it's man made Global Warming AKA Climate Change, Global Ice Age

All the same players (scientist/socialists who have received taxpayers dollars) who have continually changed the name and threat to continue to receive taxpayers dollars..

Over the last 4 decades I've watched as these people blame one thing or another on humans.. Their only solution is more taxes and more government control.. 

Yes I know I will be accused somewhere along the line as hating the earth and trying to destroy it or pollute it.. 

So be it!

You can't prove something by using false data or information..
The simple fact that they have been using false data on purpose tells me that this isn't a scientific issue, but a political issue with a political agenda..

That is truly all anyone needs to know if they want to know the truth..

Oh and I hope we don't freeze to death (1970's -1980's) or drown from the melting ice caps (1990's - 2000's) or the climate doesn't change (2000's - to present)..

I used to ride in the back of pick-up trucks.. How did I survive?

This whole issue is nothing but the Nanny State trying and succeeding in convincing people to give up more freedoms and allow the government more control over them..


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The human cost to controlling the emission of CO2, plant food, will be extracted from families via much higher utility bills. Do we really want to force more people into poverty or close to it? Do we want more families to have to make the decision to either pay a utility bill to stay warm or put food on the table.

The Law of Unintended Consequences always applies.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> The human cost to controlling the emission of CO2, plant food, will be extracted from families via much higher utility bills. Do we really want to force more people into poverty or close to it? Do we want more families to have to make the decision to either pay a utility bill to stay warm or put food on the table.
> 
> The Law of Unintended Consequences always applies.


No one really wants that. The goal would hopefully be to find a balance as we work towards ways of solving this and not bankrupting anyone. It however is really no different than any other financial decision, how do we do what is best for the people and their futures and still get it done. We can spend all our capital ( RESOURCES) now and hurt the environment and resources or we can protect the future and give up a bit now.

Kinda like taxes. We can spend and spend and spend and bankrupt our children or we can cut back, live with less and think about those who will come after us.

There is a human cost to not controlling those emissions that someone else will pay if we don't.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wlover, there seems to be a rush to judgement championed by entities for reasons I do not trust. Contrary to the medias' claims, AGW is not settled science. Recent and past work indicates otherwise. In total it points to the Sun's regulation of our climate. 

In short, man's part in affecting the climate short of a nuclear winter is impotent. The Sun's control should be common sense. Because of our innate sense of importance, we're mislead into thinking the "I" counts.

We've been mislead by the association of CO2 emissions with real water and air pollution. That and the misconstruing of other causes of natural effects preys on our psyche. Sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. Promoting CO2 emissions instead of changes in the Sun is misleading at best, but really something much worse when you consider the magnitude of the scam.

The AGW "tax" will hurt the people. The sad part is the natural cause of things like rising sea levels will still continue.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> Wlover, there seems to be a rush to judgement championed by entities for reasons I do not trust. Contrary to the medias' claims, AGW is not settled science. Recent and past work indicates otherwise. In total it points to the Sun's regulation of our climate.
> 
> In short, man's part in affecting the climate short of a nuclear winter is impotent. The Sun's control should be common sense. Because of our innate sense of importance, we're mislead into thinking the "I" counts.
> 
> ...


I get that you believe what you wrote. I do understand that there are natural causes for climate change as well. I however don't believe that man is harmless with regards to causing things that will aggravate climate change. I believe man should be always working towards limiting those things that it does do that will and could cause those problems.

Just as I don't think it is right for me to throw my used oil in the nearest creek or river, I don;'t think it is right to not work towards using less fossil fuels when there are other options to work towards.

Polluting our earth and escalating co2 emissions will hurt people as well.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> I have a house at the beach....i haven't noticed a rise in the sea level....why not?


Your house is on the wrong side ,it is the other side that rose :bdh:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Your house is on the wrong side ,it is the other side that rose :bdh:


Hehe... i suppose so! That was too funny!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wlover said:


> I get that you believe what you wrote. I do understand that there are natural causes for climate change as well. I however don't believe that man is harmless with regards to causing things that will aggravate climate change. I believe man should be always working towards limiting those things that it does do that will and could cause those problems.
> 
> Just as I don't think it is right for me to throw my used oil in the nearest creek or river, I don;'t think it is right to not work towards using less fossil fuels when there are other options to work towards.
> 
> Polluting our earth and escalating co2 emissions will hurt people as well.


It's interesting that you associate throwing used oil in a creek with CO2 emissions. That's the benefit of a mass media campaign. Saying something enough times and in many places and some will buy what you're selling.

That doesn't make the product worth buying.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> It's interesting that you associate throwing used oil in a creek with CO2 emissions. That's the benefit of a mass media campaign. Saying something enough times and in many places and some will buy what you're selling.
> 
> That doesn't make the product worth buying.


The example was all mine. A little oil at a time in the creek can be handled by nature. Too much oil at too fast a rate can not be handled by nature. That creek at the bottom of my property has been through that problem. No mass media selling job just first hand experience.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

The mass media sales job is the CO2 as pollutant scam.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> The mass media sales job is the CO2 as pollutant scam.


You don't believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> The mass media sales job is the CO2 as pollutant scam.


Nevers said it was a pollutant. :facepalm:


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Wlover said:


> Nevers said it was a pollutant. :facepalm:


 You may not, but that's the official line of the EPA.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Darren said:


> You may not, but that's the official line of the EPA.


Well, I am not the EPA or their spokesperson and would therefore aapreciate it if you would not assume things of me because of what you might feel about them.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You don't believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


I believe the much, much larger presence of water vapor in the atmosphere and water vapor's effect as a green house gas though the Sun's influence is the primary driver of not only weather but in the long term climate.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You don't believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas?


Do you believe that Co2 is neccessary for life?


----------



## sammyd (Mar 11, 2007)

greg273 said:


> Yes indeed. Now add a potential doubling of atmospheric CO2 to the mix and what do you think will happen? Greenhouse gasses are called that for a reason, they are transparent to visible sunlight, yet relatively opaque to re-emitted longwave thermal radiation. Of course we should be thankful for them, but realize increasing them has consequences. And hey i'm not saying all the consequences will be bad, just realize our actions WILL have reactions...


 Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the effect. It would probably equal about a .5 C degree increase in temp.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

sammyd said:


> Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the effect. It would probably equal about a .5 C degree increase in temp.


It didn't take long before the fraud behind the hockey stick graph was found. CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise. It's the other way around. Increased temperatures lead CO2 increases. CO2 lags.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

*New study confirms global warming skeptics better informed*



> A new study to be published in the journal Advances in Political Psychology reveals that global warming alarmists do not understand climate science as well as the skeptics they hysterically condemn as "deniers." Investors' Business Daily reported on Wednesday that Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan--who is not a skeptic--quizzed 2,000 people with nine questions on the science of climate change and found that skeptics scored slightly higher than the alarmists.



http://www.examiner.com/article/new-study-confirms-global-warming-skeptics-better-informed


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

Darren said:


> It didn't take long before the fraud behind the hockey stick graph was found. CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise. It's the other way around. Increased temperatures lead CO2 increases. CO2 lags.


 Oh boy, here we go again. You've pretty much got the classic talking points down, I'l give you that much. Whether CO2 has historically LED or LAGGED temperature changes is IRRELEVANT to the current situation, where the CO2 rise , through human industry, is LEADING. Barring some negative feedback loop, (like clouds reflecting sunlight, etc) temps will catch up in the long run.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Darren said:


> It didn't take long before the fraud behind the hockey stick graph was found. CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise. It's the other way around. Increased temperatures lead CO2 increases. CO2 lags.


Ya even Al Gore had to confess that that so called hockey stick was Faked~~


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

sammyd said:


> Doubling the amount of CO2 does not double the effect. It would probably equal about a .5 C degree increase in temp.


 Ah, so you admit raising CO2 will increase temps. Good for you. ALthough your estimate is less than what the experts in the field say.


> Climate sensitivity is an important and often poorly understood concept. Put simply, it is usually defined as the amount of global surface warming that will occur when atmospheric CO2 concentrations double. These estimates have proven remarkably stable over time, generally falling in the range of *1.5 to 4.5 degrees C per doubling of CO2*.* Using its established terminology, IPCC in its Fourth Assessment Report slightly narrowed this range, arguing that climate sensitivity was âlikelyâ between 2 C to 4.5 C, and that it was âvery likelyâ more than 1.5 C.


 But hey, they're probably just a bunch of liars and commie-loving leftists out to destroy capitalism. Perhaps the Koch brothers can tell us what they think true number is. One way or another, we're going to find out.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

JeffreyD said:


> Do you believe that Co2 is neccessary for life?


 Don't worry Jeff. Theres not going to be a CO2 shortage anytime soon.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

greg273 said:


> Oh boy, here we go again. You've pretty much got the classic talking points down, I'l give you that much. Whether CO2 has historically LED or LAGGED temperature changes is IRRELEVANT to the current situation, where the CO2 rise , through human industry, is LEADING. Barring some negative feedback loop, (like clouds reflecting sunlight, etc) temps will catch up in the long run.


Did you miss the info on the tree ring data?


----------



## Homesteader1 (Oct 19, 2011)

Lets plant more trees and stop rapeing our forest.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Homesteader1 said:


> Lets plant more trees and stop rapeing our forest.


Really? I find it hard to believe that you don't use any leaf, fruit, wood or paper products.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> In short, man's part in affecting the climate short of a nuclear winter is impotent


Not sure I'd go with "impotent," but generally speaking (short of your example of nuclear winter) we probably don't have as much potential impact as a volcanic eruption!

http://www.dandantheweatherman.com/Bereklauw/yearnosummer.html


----------

