# Let's hear it for THIS scientist



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Ran across this, most interesting.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

Richard Urban > Biologyteacher100 â¢ 5 months ago 


Scientist's, real scientist's, like myself, we know what we don't know, we know, that we only understand about 20% of all the forces that affect climate. So ask yourself this? How can any "Real" scientist's make computer predictions, that are extremely prone to exaggerating any errors, when they only understand about 20% of the topic?

When weather predictions, aka, mini climate models, that's what they are, but because the models only look out about 10 days, we call that weather, but they are essentially mini climate models or similar enough for my example. So, how can anyone claim they can predict things out to say 100 years, when often times the weather models get the very next day wrong? Why do they get the next day wrong, on occasions? Because all the needed information that must go into theses models is not available, or simply not understood.

Did you know we Meteorologists have to pick between about 10 different types of weather models, to make a forecast. Why is that? It's true. This is only to make predictions out for several days, imagine 10 or 20 years, and the complexity required for that?

Note: Many times it's better not to use any models. Often we can beat the computers just by looking at the stack. (Observations in the Troposphere)

'Why don't you skeptics download them, study the code or even try running them based on changes in greenhouse gases."

And this questions defines how a climate Naziâs brain works. There is only one variable "Greenhouse gases" What about the hundreds of other variables? You know, the variables that are never even programmed into any of the climate models? It's true!

When weather models start becoming accurate enough to predict weather several months in advance, and we understood how to make computer models well enough that we can put them all together and just have one, then maybe, just maybe we would have the knowledge to create some basic climate models that work well.

I can hear some of you saying, "But some of these climate models have been correct" To that I say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day, or even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while" Overall, climate models have not been accurate.

The only reason weather models improve, is because we get to see the answer only a few days later. There is only so much that can be done with hind-casting on something that is as complicated as the earth's climate, and by the time we see if the climate models were in fact correct, or incorrect, say 20-50 years, well then everything has already changed. The people that made the programs are likely dead, so it is impossible with our 20% understanding, at this time, to make climate models. Does that mean we stop? Of course not,

Because of all of this, I am forced to go back to things we understand better, for example, we know how much water/ice, is on the earth, and we know how much energy it takes to alter it's temperature. We know it takes 27 times more energy to change water temperature than it does to change air temperatures. Simple stuff compared with trying to put one model together, that takes into account all the earth's variables.

We can use the climate scientists theories on the amount of heat, from additional CO2, affecting greenhouses gases, is creating. The theory is, that the increased CO2 from man, (Which is just a theory, it could be coming from the earth, volcanic activity on the ocean floor, and so on, but I will play along) is increasing the energy on the earth the same as if the sun's energy went up by 2%. Now we can take that worst case scenario, meaning we are assuming mankind added the CO2 to the atmosphere, and we are assuming that the added CO2 only creates heat, meaning no negative feedbacks, which you can't do, but that's okay, because we are just trying to find out if it's possible to alter the earth's climate in any meaningful (Or drastic) way, so I'll play along.

Side note: Nobody knows the correct temperature for the earth, which is most beneficial to mankind. In other words, the earth is now at 288.8 K, give or take a degree, (When we calculate the earth's mean temperature, we have an error of +/- 1 K) maybe mankind would do much better if the earth was at 291.8 K? Nobody knows this, but that's okay, I'll still play along.

So now we calculate the amount of energy it would take to heat the oceans, a degree or two. (In order to alter climate you first have to change the temperature of the entire ocean, because the ocean (average 2.5 mile depth) mixes thoughout over relatively short periods of time, it takes a long time and a lot of energy to change all the water.

We have all seen this relationship, we have all experienced this in our everyday lives. For example, you store your box of 30 beers in the garage during the winter (1 C) then you bring it into the house and put it in the hallway (20 C) , you were supposed to put in in the refrigerator , but you forgot. Half a day later you go to grab a beer from the refrigerator, Crap, no more beer in there, so you ask your wife, "Honey where is that beer I brought in from the garage?" She says, "I put it in the closet" Crap now I don't have any cold beer! Yes you do!!!! Just take a can out of the middle of the box, it will still be cold enough to be refreshing.

In college we students had to calculate in class, (This was a word problem in the back of our physic book) how long it would take to heat the oceans, aka, change the climate, if we increased insulation (The sun) by 10 %?

Do any of you Climate Nazi's out there, think it took less than 1,000 years? The way you talk, you think it takes about 10-15 years to change ocean temperatures.

There is no such thing as rapid climate change or temperature change. History and physic's has shown that meaningful change takes hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years.

Anyone care to break that argument? Good luck.

At least now you know the truth and you don't have to keep sounding stupid, by believing in this AGW crap.

Much more on the site.......enjoy........Joe


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

That's one reason I don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm not a scientist. Never will be one either. I leave the science to them and the rants to HT. Opinions by and large never seem to change anyway.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

The guy makes great points. When one looks at the scientists and supporters of GW, it becomes clear they are the same people by and large that support big government, immigration, LGBT issues, and other liberal causes. Why would a science issue become a social cause issue? Simply because it supports their overall agenda of breaking down society to create a socialist utopia. If they can successfully foist the climate change issue into the political process, they can get laws passed that put more regulations on everyone and takes in a pile (at least hundreds of billions per year) of money to be redistributed to expand the socialist agenda.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

poppy said:


> The guy makes great points. When one looks at the scientists and supporters of GW, it becomes clear they are the same people by and large that support big government, immigration, LGBT issues, and other liberal causes. Why would a science issue become a social cause issue? Simply because it supports their overall agenda of breaking down society to create a socialist utopia. If they can successfully foist the climate change issue into the political process, they can get laws passed that put more regulations on everyone and takes in a pile (at least hundreds of billions per year) of money to be redistributed to expand the socialist agenda.


You mean like charging big bucks for carbon credits?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> You mean like charging big bucks for carbon credits?


Yes, but that is only the tinyest tip of the largest iceberg.

If you can convince people that their world is in danger of ending, you can do stuff like create whole new lucrative businesses like all the "green power" stuff, and destroy our most practical and economic energy sources like coal and natural gas.

Members of congress are free to invest in a business model, then destroy the competition with regulations, use government power, money and influence to promote the new business model, villify the competition. THEN, all those who lost jobs can be "saved from poverty" by government give-aways and they still look like the good guys, while congresscritters get even more wealthy.

With all the promotion of solar energy by government, it is seldom spoken of that a solar panel still uses more energy in it's manufacture than it produces in it's lifetime. Has been that way from the start, and they have been saying that it soon will be different, maybe it will, but that still means that all of them we have produced until that day are wasted energy, pure and simple, not to mention all of the supporting hardware, wire, transportation, the HUGE government subsidies, also not to mention the billions of government dollars spent on promotion, administration, payoffs to congresscritters, there is no real end to the waste and graft, and that is, of course, only one program.

Government uses gobal warming to excuse itself when it demands higher and higher gas mileage every year until infinity, so manufacturers have to keep coming up with new tricks to make it so. I just checked on the new 2016 chevy basic 1/2 ton work truck, and they START at about 27 thousand. How much of that money winds up in the pockets of government officials? Don't know, but if Chevy starts slacking off on their campaign donations, the mileage requirements will get a lot worse, you can bet!

I could drone on forever about this giant farce, and I encourage anyone who is interested to follow the money trails and the transfers of power and money from the individual citizens, state and local governments, and yes, business, to the federal government to "help them keep the world from ending", but I have some other stuff in my life that must also be looked after, so I have to get myself rolling this morning....Joe


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Agree Joe. Now while I know nothing much about climate change and all that money laundering I do know quite a bit about the conservation side. Possibly more than anyone on this forum. My company for years worked all over Texas. Many crews many jobs many years.

I helped write some of the energy codes early on. Now they are filled with bloat and money. It's sickening. It's not about saving energy it's about who's pockets do we fill.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

That guy needs to get with the program, his business model could be a little more profitable if he changed sides on this issue. Scientists are like race car drivers, they need sponsors. Actual money, country club memberships, or fancy gadget donations, makes no difference. Science, if done correctly, will always produce more questions than answers. It's which questions are asked out loud that reflect the personal or paid opinions of the scientist.


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

mreynolds said:


> You mean like charging big bucks for carbon credits?


Good example. Where do those carbon credit bucks end up? That's a liberal money stealing/laundering scam if there ever was one.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

poppy said:


> Good example. Where do those carbon credit bucks end up? That's a liberal money stealing/laundering scam if there ever was one.


Weeelllll...

Since you asked

15 to 25 % go to the brokers. 

Then the money is used by investors to say build like Hydroelectric generating plant. Then those same investors sell it for a profit.

Can you say no money down, no payments for life and still sell for Profit?

But no one is trying to make money on they other side of the AGW coin right?

That's why I laugh at these debates. Both sides want money. Both sides corrupt. 

Both sides absolutely correct too.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I'll readily admit I have an axe to grind, but I certainly do NOT have any financial motives for trying to dispell the myths. I am retired and have no investments that will suffer or prosper because of them.

I DO, however, care very deeply about our nation and it's prosperity and liberty, and this hoax is in direct opposition to that interest.

It is only the very latest buzzword or phrase that can cancel all rational thought and lead sane people into lala land by it's mere mention.

Burn the witch! She's causing global warming!

Before anybody tells me that I like dirty rivers and filthy air, not the case. I have lived close to the land my whole life, and treasure it. I have also observed how quickly and completely it heals itself when a home or farm disapears or a forest fire dies. You get no warranty, though. Sometimes disaster happens. WHEN disaster happens, though, it is rarely the one that was predicted. usually something else entirely.

This lack of predictability can be roughly explained by chaos theory, which, by the way, is ALSO SCIENCE......

http://fractalfoundation.org/resources/what-is-chaos-theory/

and worh a read if you have time.......Joe


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Joebill for president.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

joebill said:


> I'll readily admit I have an axe to grind, but I certainly do NOT have any financial motives for trying to dispell the myths. I am retired and have no investments that will suffer or prosper because of them.
> 
> I DO, however, care very deeply about our nation and it's prosperity and liberty, and this hoax is in direct opposition to that interest.
> 
> ...


Please don't misunderstand. I don't mean you or Nevada or anyone on here being corrupt. The corrupt I mean I'd the oil companies on the anti side and the brokers and investors on the pro side.


----------



## thericeguy (Jan 3, 2016)

I suspect joe was merely establishing his credibility, unlike those scientists whos 3 year $53,000,000 study was funded by an industry group, and shockingly came out with results in favor of said industry. And then they try to hide who funded them.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Those above are the ones pushing the buttons off otherwise rational people. If ten percent of the world population felt guilty how much money would that be in cc? Read once that virgin air allowed their passengers to pay between ten and thirty euros per flight in cc's. Thousands of euros were collected. Who got that money? Who benefited? 


If anyone is guilty it's me. That conservation money I made was cc's. Eight years of just that. Until I found out what it was really about. 

I like sleeping at night better.


----------



## CurtisWilliams (Mar 14, 2005)

I was hopin' it was about Bill Nye...


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> Please don't misunderstand. I don't mean you or Nevada or anyone on here being corrupt. The corrupt I mean I'd the oil companies on the anti side and the brokers and investors on the pro side.


I understand perfecctly, and neither resent nor deny your observations. Plenty of corruption to go around, and plenty of lies.

I am truly happy I never had to deal with stockholders in business. Somebody tells me my blacksmith shop was destroying the planet, my resonse was clang, clang, clang, "bite me" clang, clang, clang..... Not commishoning a study to get some "scientist" to say otherwise.

Used to be only the lawyers smiled and got rich when the trouble started, now it's the "scientists", too.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

mreynolds said:


> Agree Joe. Now while I know nothing much about climate change and all that money laundering I do know quite a bit about the conservation side. Possibly more than anyone on this forum. My company for years worked all over Texas. Many crews many jobs many years.
> 
> I helped write some of the energy codes early on. Now they are filled with bloat and money. It's sickening. It's not about saving energy it's about who's pockets do we fill.



As a curiosity, how many years of oil do you think we have left at our current burn rate? I rememberwhen we were "running out" decades ago, and also when we had reached "peak oil" production back in the 1950's.....well, i don't actually REMEMBER the issue, only the years.

Nowadays, it seems like if we look for a gallon we find a tankerfull.

Also, are we getting any more efficient at producing it by the newer methods?.....Thanks......Joe


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

joebill said:


> As a curiosity, how many years of oil do you think we have left at our current burn rate? I rememberwhen we were "running out" decades ago, and also when we had reached "peak oil" production back in the 1950's.....well, i don't actually REMEMBER the issue, only the years.
> 
> Nowadays, it seems like if we look for a gallon we find a tankerfull.
> 
> Also, are we getting any more efficient at producing it by the newer methods?.....Thanks......Joe



My field of work is construction. It used to be on the energy conservation side but now just whatever I feel like doing. But I do remember my father telling me when I was a kid that there was enough oil of the coast of Venezuela to last the entire world 100 years. This was way before Chavez. 

As to the utilities they can and do have a lot of their plants as duel fuel. It's just cheaper to use coal now. At least they ones here on Texas that I know of anyway. Also plenty of hydroelectric plants that have been online some since the sixties. 

Thirty miles from my house is called by some the Alaska of ng reserves. They just drill them and cap. Just waiting for the price to go up. In some cases every hundred yards do they can pull it out that much quicker.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

We also probably have the largest wind power than any other state here. Grows daily even. Know an electrician that wired some and they write that jokers with 1000 mcm cable. That's a lot of juice for one windmill.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Ran across this, most interesting.
> 
> http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry
> 
> ...


All right, first off, quoting from the New American pretty much renders the entire post rubbish all by it's lonesome. It's the magazine of the John Birch society, which is so far right as to be completely unrecognizable as anything other than an irrational, pseudo-political hate group.

But, since some of the arguments you brought up actually make sense, I'll bite. First, something the article brought up: global cooling. Global cooling was never given that much attention, at least not in the scientific community. There was some fear of it, certainly, and a couple studies. Yet in the same year, most of the studies were still worried about warming. The media, however, jumped on the supposed confusion as a way to make the scientific community appear confused. To that end, the media's ploy worked brilliantly. Everyone always brings up global cooling as a reason to doubt the scientific consensus.

Now, onto your comments. Weather is not climate. Making that assertion is flat wrong. Climate is weather over an extended period of time. As a meteorologist, I sincerely hope you realize that statement is incorrect. Further, weather models and predictions are one thing. We already have a huge pool of past data to pick from. 

Also, your assertion that CO2 may or may not be caused by man is suspect. There could be other sources - it would be great! We could blame nature and get back to enjoying our SUVs. But just as you can do the math to show how very hard it is to change the ocean's heat content, I'm sure you can do the math to show how much CO2 2 billion cars and industry can emit. You'll find it's a lot.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

What hiatus? I know it's there, but look at the whole graph. It has to be taken in context. Next, hit the CO2 tab:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

Dang. That's a lot of CO2. Where's it coming from? Some unseen natural force? I'm pretty sure we would have noticed. Volcanoes may be large and impressive, but they can't hold a candle (haha) to our smokestacks.

All right, now, how about that ocean heat content? Well, it's going up. Ocean acidification caused by carbonic acid caused by CO2? Up. Sea level? Up.

What's not going up? Land ice. Down. Glaciers. Down. Arctic sea ice. DOWN.

Species of the world. DOWN.

Sorry for the doomsday attitude. It just kind of causes me to lose a little faith in humanity when we have all these indicators, staring us in the face, and we keep doing business as usual.

Sure. Maybe it's not in your backyard. It's not (visibly) effecting your checking account. It a bogeyman the government is foisting upon you. I get that. No one wants to be told what to do. No one wants to feel oppressed. People just want to do their thing, eat, sleep, drink and have sex, and I totally understand that. 

:whistlin:

But we have all this evidence, and it's good quality evidence. Any liberal slant that you're seeing is irrelevant. A lot of scientists lean liberal these days, but a lot don't. These theory just has a lot of visibility, it's confusing, few understand it, and it seems like everyone wants to take advantage of you. 

But perceived hoaxes and conspiracy theories do not upset a scientific theory. They do absolutely nothing to it. People can claim the earth is flat all they want, but it's doesn't make it flat. 

What do you call a dog with 5 legs? Nothing; you can't call a tail a leg.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Ok, not sure I can cover the whole thing before breakfast, but I'll give it a go.

From the top;

I'm sure any publication that disagrees with you is pure rubbish. I'm not a big fan of the Birchers, either, but mainly because they lack a sense of humor about anything, and that wears me down, but they are a very thoughtfull group who have gotten a lot of things right over the years. Maybe some things wrong, too, I don't know, but like I say, I really can't hang around with them because they never seem to laugh.

I will say that none of them are dependant on the goodwill of the global warming myth to keep their jobs, which is more than I can say for Nasa. The last I heard, Nasa's true misssion passed out by Obama is to make Muslims feel better about themselves.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/05/nasa-chief-frontier-better-relations-muslims.html

Certainly not a scientific goal for an agency, more like public relations. Ditto global warming.

On the other hand, the part you are slamming is a letter from a scientist, not an editorial in the magazine. A metiorologist, no less. What is YOUR field of study, and what degree have you achieved in that field?

With some understanding of thermodynamics,I'm ashamed to say that it never ocurred to me to simply calculate the volume of water on hand, the amount of heat it would take to raise it's temperature a set amount, but that is obviously the information needed, and he did the work.

I also recall something about it taking a LOT more calories of heat to raise water that single degree above freezing than at any other temperature, but no time to look it up right now.

You really thinmk that a volcano is a minor source of Co2? check your facts. One was reputed to have spewed more polllutantys than man had since the industrial revolution. In fact, you need to check a LOT of your facts. In fact, your entire premise.

I don't believe you have much of an idea how the world really works, since you believe we should halt all extinction of species. That is exactly how we got where we are today, and by your theory, we should all be single-cell critters.

Since science has only catalogged less than half the life forms on the planet, how did you arrive at the fact that the total count is going down? Maybe you need to let science in on the stuff they know nothing about.

For instance, Nasa is currently stumbling all over itself trying to explain anarctic ice INCREASES.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/earth20121112.html
and from another site;

Climate model simulations of sea-ice trends

Climate models simulate a decline in ice extent, thickness and volume in Antarctica. Equilibrium models cannot currently reproduce trends in Antarctic sea ice variability [17]. Virtually all equilibrium climate models simulate a strong decrease in the area of sea ice [18]. This may be because global climate models do not currently incorporate ice-shelf / -sheet/ -climate interactions. Basal melt from ice shelves is therefore disregarded. These equilbruim models may give an idea of what may eventually happen. Simulations with models that do include these interactions, particularly simulating the effect of extra freshwater from melting glaciers and ice caps, do simulate growths in Antarctic sea ice [10


A long way of saying "uhhh, I dunno"
.
http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-ocean-interactions/antarctic-sea-ice/

Then, there is the EPA head, unable to declare that any of obama's plans can have any effect on global warming, other than to "show our comittment"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/2/#1414cf5d67ea

This might be the best of all, and me describing it would do it a diservice, suffice to say, a scientist in the field of sea-level cange relates how the hype curently in fashion is purely simplistic salesmanship on the part of GW promoters.....my words, not his, but I strongly suggest that you READ his, because the Birchers it AIN'T.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ir-heads-on-rising-ocean-claims/#56b6f3f64f03

Late for breakfast....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

OK, did a fact check and volcanos represent about 1% of the CO2 that WE produce, but CO2 levels have been MUCH higher on our chunk of rock before man ever figured out how to make a zippo, so where did THAT come from? I duuno, and neither do you. Maybe Thor passed gas.

Try looking at the whole thing with a bit of perspective;

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Gotta go. Today is the 50th aniversery of my first date with a certain young lady who I later persuaded to marry me, and she wants a repeat. No chance I can find a '59 Chevy to court her in, but I CAN take her out for a milk shake....Joe


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

joebill said:


> OK, did a fact check and volcanos represent about 1% of the CO2 that WE produce, but CO2 levels have been MUCH higher on our chunk of rock before man ever figured out how to make a zippo, so where did THAT come from? I duuno, and neither do you. Maybe Thor passed gas.
> 
> Try looking at the whole thing with a bit of perspective;
> 
> ...


About the same for us. I'd probably just send her for own milkshake while I went fishing and have her bring me back something.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

The last link in your first post shows graphs that coincide pretty nicely with what's currently being said. The main difference is in the interpretation of the data. 

Anyways, as far as Fred Singer is concerned, it mainly appears anyone can be bought by the oil industry. Of course, writing that off is as convenient as waving the magic wand at species extinction. Tell you want, why don't we just launch nuclear warheads into the forest? We'll kill off the entire planet and end up with a few really, really healthy species, right? Great idea - you pull the trigger. Just because species go extinct on their own sometimes doesn't give us free liberty to commit genocide on millions of them.

Also, meteorologists only have to worry about why the desert is going to affect the weather for 10 days. Climatologists have to worry about how the desert came to be. Like I said, we have plenty of past data to work off.

Another error you've made is assuming that since we say Co2 is the largest contributor, it must be the largest contributor, therefore it is always the largest contributor. This isn't always true. Sometimes other things initiate a climate swing, but the fact is we generally know what caused it, or at least have a good idea. The medieval warm period was pretty recent, after all, and that was way before industrialization. 

back to Fred Singer: Here's a list of all his arguments and rebuttals. I don't have to refute them because they've already been refuted. I know the website is biased, but the citations and links are all there with detailed explanations of the rebuttals.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Fred_Singer.htm

That's all for now, Good night.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> OK, did a fact check and volcanos represent about 1% of the CO2 that WE produce, but CO2 levels have been MUCH higher on our chunk of rock before man ever figured out how to make a zippo, so where did THAT come from? I duuno, and neither do you.


 The CO2 has always been here, in the earths crust, mantle, biosphere, or atmosphere. Geologic processes can change the amount in the atmosphere, as can the actions of mankind.
Think about the earths climate throughout the ages... Higher temps and atmospheric CO2 levels have shown a POSITIVE correlation over the long term. Why would that cease to be the case now? We are taking MILLIONS of years worth of stored sunlight, in the form of fossil fuels, and releasing it BACK into the atmosphere in the form of CO2, one of the many greenhouse gasses that help regulate the temperature on earth. 
Think about the climate of the earth when the great equatorial coal forming swamps were being formed... it was hotter. The plants drew down a massive amount of CO2 and it got buried. We're digging it up now, and releasing it back into the atmosphere. Whether worldwide volcanos spew Co2, or humans do, the earth doesn't care, the net result will be the same. The historical record indicates that higher CO2 generally means higher temps. 
Of course there are other factors, but the CO2-temp correlation is pretty well documented.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

" The historical record indicates that higher CO2 generally means higher temps. 
Of course there are other factors, but the CO2-temp correlation is pretty well documented. "

As is the fact that there is a lag, meaning that higher temps seem to cause higher co2 levels, not the reverse. You guys aolways leave out the good parts.

I'm not going to nit-pick my way through mountains of stuff and various interpretations of what is true or faked and which interpretation is accurate and which is wishfull thinking. There are a lot of indisputable facts that should be considered, and anybody looking in is free to make up his/her own mind, and I certainly can't force you to think my way, and he reverse is also quite true. I assure you, though, that a lot more folks think my way than you can imagine, so don't profess that I am a lone lizard out here in the desert with nobody else believing that this as about the largest hoax in the history of man.

Some, not all, of those facts are;

There is no question whatsoever that a lot of data has been faked. if this were a scientific inquiry rather than a spoof to bring people into line, why would anybody do that? Science is a search for truth, not a search for how best to load the dice without getting caught.

Every prediction ever made of any substance has been wrong. That's a lot of years waiting for Florida to sink beneath the waves. Nothing in Gore's "earth in the balanxce' ever happened, ditto the 'inconvieniant fact" mobvie. I read in Mother Earth about how long we had to get rid of all the septic tanks and the internal combustion engine before it would be too late. it was an old issue, and by the time i read it, it was ALREADY 9 years too late, according to "scientist's predictions".

If you have time to get through it, you can read a great deal about this history of the attempt to establish man made global warming through lies and misdirection here;

http://www.justfacts.com/globalwarming.asp

It is a very long article, and doesn't get to the meat of it right off the bat, but this is an excerpt from the middle, which is one of the emails from "climate gate";

These emails (commonly referred to as the ClimateGate emails) show IPCC scientists and authors: 

&#8226; proposing to conduct an &#8220;honest&#8221; study about the &#8220;uncertainties&#8221; of proxies and then to &#8220;publish, retire, and don&#8217;t leave a forwarding address,&#8221; because &#8220;what I almost think I know to be the case, the results of this study will show&#8221; that we &#8220;honestly know f**k-all&#8221; (i.e., little or nothing[131]) about Northern Hemisphere temperature variability over periods of more than a hundred years.[132] 


Typical of the rest of what I read, after the introduction and a few graphs and things to establish the subject matter. Lots about the FACT that the "goals of the IPCC and science in general being different from one another.

Most of my life, in one way or another, i have been involved in sales, and while I never tried to sell anybody anything I didn't think would benifit them, I never lied to make a sale, and always respected the fact that any man at all knew better what his best interests were than i did. 

That attitude lost me some sales in the short run, but increased the quality and loyalty of my customer base beyond my wildest expectaions, BUT.....I also observed a lot of the other kind of salesmen. Those kind only wanted to make the sale for their own reasons, and when they justified it at all, it was with remarks like "somebody is going to get that guy's money, and it might as well be me."

I recognise that kind of sales pitch in the man-made global warming push. Not that I believe that enerybody who tries to push it knows it is untrue, but that it has a background full of lies and misrepresentations, urges the very same behaviour that liberals everywhere truly want people to engage in, uses the "everybody knows" motivator, when in truth nobody really knows, uses dire ecological threats and attempts social exclusion as cohersion, Lies to the children about cute animals dying off because of their parent's selfishness.......and on and on. Seen it over and over again. i could TEACH it, except I have too much self respect.

OK, no time for any more. Burning daylight....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> As is the fact that there is a lag, meaning that higher temps seem to cause higher co2 levels, not the reverse. You guys aolways leave out the good parts.


 Any sort of 'lag' is irrelevant when the CO2 rise is* leading*. If they are POSITIVELY correlated, then they will move more or less in tandem, just as they have done in every glacial/interglacial cycle. 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Don't get me wrong, a rise in temps isn't the end of the world, but it will bring changes... We can debate the effects, but the evidence for a warming world is mounting. A few out-of-context emails aside, there is a mountain of evidence FOR the theory, and very little credible evidence against it. Just because it happens to line up with a 'hippy environmentalist' attitude should have no bearing. And of course people are going to try and make money off of it, thats what good capitalists do, CAPITALIZE on any given situation to maximize profit. 
Again, the evidence for AGW is stronger than the evidence AGAINST it.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> " The historical record indicates that higher CO2 generally means higher temps.
> Of course there are other factors, but the CO2-temp correlation is pretty well documented. "
> 
> As is the fact that there is a lag, meaning that higher temps seem to cause higher co2 levels, not the reverse. You guys aolways leave out the good parts.
> ...


Even if the researchers at East Anglia lied about absolutely everything, which they didn't, there are plenty of other universities, government agencies, and organizations out there with data to back up AGW. The problem is that with this theory, you really do have to sift through the data. Most of it's reliable. Where are the glitches in the system? 

Saying the theory is defunct because it happens to align with some liberal values is absurd. Are liberals really that bad? You're throwing Â½ the U S population into the devil light. Just because you disagree with them doesn't really mean anything. There are conservative scientists too. Further, have you considered that maybe liberals believe what they believe BECAUSE of things like climate change and human suffering? Further, just because you have some buddies that you can bounce your "Climate change hoax" conspiracy theories means absolutely nothing. Further, we have species going extinct at an unprecedented rate, deforestation is way too high, and pollution is still an issue. How is this NOT an issue? :shrug:

And, and your initial claim that high temperatures might cause higher CO2 levels is mostly false. Kindergarten science can prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Ah, where to begin?

"And of course people are going to try and make money off of it, thats what good capitalists do, CAPITALIZE on any given situation to maximize profit."

And often lie about it to keep it going. Why is it bad when industry does it and perfectly acceptable when paid science hacks do it? 

"And, and your initial claim that high temperatures might cause higher CO2 levels is mostly false. Kindergarten science can prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas."

No proof required that co2 is a greenhouse gas, I accept that 100%. Show me your proof that high temps do not cause rises in CO2, please. "mostly false" does not qualify, by the way. An 800 year gap between high CO2 levels and high temps is a pretty funny form of proof.

Here are a few items from those "out of context' emails written by the folks who were involved with the studies, trying to say what they were being paid to say without selling their souls, and losing the battle;

" In my (perhaps too harsh) view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC.&#8221;

instructing each other to delete emails relating to the 2007 IPCC report

&#8220;I feel rather uncomfortable about using not only unpublished but also unreviewed material as the backbone of our conclusions (or any conclusions). &#8230; Essentially, I feel that at this point there are very little rules and almost anything goes. I think this will set a dangerous precedent which might mine the IPCC credibility, and I am a bit uncomfortable that now nearly everybody seems to think that it is just ok to do this.&#8221;

"I&#8217;ve just completed Mike&#8217;s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith&#8217;s to hide the decline.&#8221;



"Look at the instrumental record! There are huge differences between different regions - Alaska has warmed substantially while eastern North America cooled after the 1950s. Locking onto local records, no matter how beautiful, can lead to serious errors."

I could go on and on, but suffice to say that when data supported the "hockey stick" theory of global warming patterns, it was given up to 390 times the value in calculations that data that did NOT support it was given. I don't care who you are, that is called cookin' the books.

Moreover, the true "proof" of the theory would be a fair percentage of the predictions that were made coming true. Ain't happening. 

You ask "Where are the glitches in the system?"

You can begin with the fact that most of those studies were mere copies of one antother. Not hard to get a "peer review' from the guy you copied. Of course, the biggest glitch is it is 'way past due, and the predictions were and are garbage. The only prediction that came through is that a lot of folks made a lot of money on it, including the guy who did the most to kick it off, using OUR money, and that would be Al Gore.

The strangest thing to me is that people can be talked into the fantasy that they can rescue or destroy the planet by recycling beer cans and driving a car that resmbles one.

Nowhere does anybody claim that the hundreds of millions we have spent on the farce is doing a paticle of good, even though we are CERTAINLY doing a lot of harm to our economy and longtime financial outlook. 

And now, I get "Don't get me wrong, a rise in temps isn't the end of the world, but it will bring changes... "

Of COURSE there will be change, always have been, always will, and the various lifeforms will either adapt or be replaced, as they always have been. Climate has always been a yoyo, and will continue to be, and as always, things will changde because of it.

Whatever changes come, they will not, I assure you, be as damaging as the religous environmental movement....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> An 800 year gap between high CO2 levels and high temps is a pretty funny form of proof.


 Again, past climate swings were dominated by orbital forcing, precession of ice ages relied mostly on that one factor, the eccentricity of the earths orbit. CO2 was an amplifying factor, as it still remains today.
Present day, we see CO2 rising, at a rate not seen in millions of years. Whether historically it has 'lagged or led' the temperature change isn't relevant. If they are positively correlated, any 'lag' is bound to be short-lived, and was in fact predicted in 1990.
You can bet there will be changes, some good, some bad. Sea level rise will spell social upheaval for many people,and that will be on top of the 'normal' droughts, flood, pestilence, that may or may not increase with a warmer world. On the other hand, the growing season may increase for some. 
Aside from some cherry-picked emails that are often out of context, the evidence for rapid climate change outweighs the evidence against it. And yes joebill, its mainly due to fossil fuels. Where do you think all that carbon goes when it gets burned? Some ends up in the ocean, some ends up in plants, and some ends up in the atmosphere. 
You've already mentioned the volcanoes, and that human activity releases a *hundred times more CO2 into the air than all the worlds volcanoes *in an average year. Would you concede humans might be able to influence the climate with that going on, year after year?
We're pretty much along for the ride, but lets be honest about our role in all of this.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Where is your 800 years of CO2 lag, Joebill? Maybe that happens sometimes in the past - there are indeed a great many variables that go into a healthy, functioning climate. Smokestacks in every country spewing fumes really don't tie into the picture.

Honestly, we don't need to see using fossil fuels regardless. They're hazardous to transport and cause massive environmental degradation no matter how you flip the coin. And stop calling it a religion. As a Christian, we really don't have the right to say that others have a religion and then make fun of it, because you set yourself up for rediculment. If you were an atheist, it would be different - then I would consider it insulting. But as it stands it just sounds contradictory - you have a religion, then you accuse others of having one as if it's a bad thing. And just to be clear, environmentalism is not a religion - it's just about wanting to be good stewards of the earth so that future generations can have a nice place to live. That and we don't believe Jesus is going to come save us from ourselves, so we *&^% well better shape up.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/



> There is, however, still a degree of uncertainty about which came first&#8212;a spike in temperature or CO2. Until now, the most comprehensive records to date on a major change in Earth&#8217;s climate came from the EPICA Dome C ice core on the Antarctic Plateau. The data, covering the end of the last ice age, between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago, show that CO2 levels could have lagged behind rising global temperatures by as much as 1,400 years. &#8220;The idea that there was a lag of CO2 behind temperature is something climate change skeptics pick on,&#8221; says Edward Brook of Oregon State University&#8217;s College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences. &#8220;They say, &#8216;How could CO2 levels affect global temperature when you are telling me the temperature changed first?&#8217;&#8221;





> Parrenin&#8217;s team addresses these concerns with a new method that establishes the different ages of the gas and ice. They measured the concentration of an isotope, nitrogen 15, which is greater the deeper the snowpack is. Once they were able to determine snowpack depth from the nitrogen 15 data, a simple model can determine the offset in depth between gas and ice and the amount of time the difference represents. The researchers then compared results from multiple locations to reduce the margin of error.


Then east anglia emails (They;ve already been exonerated, and they're still cherry picked to DEATH by the skeptics, but here we go

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...n-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.V0pWlMdeCt8



> The manufactured controversy over emails stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit has generated a lot more heat than light. The email content being quoted does not indicate that climate data and research have been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the content of these stolen emails has any impact on our overall understanding that human activities are driving dangerous levels of global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they do are inaccurate.
> 
> Investigations Clear Scientists of Wrongdoing
> 
> ...


Interestingly, this happens a lot with mobs. The science is in, the court has settled the case, but the mob still thinks someone's guilty. Everyone has to have a scapegoat.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Again, past climate swings were dominated by orbital forcing, precession of ice ages relied mostly on that one factor, the eccentricity of the earths orbit. CO2 was an amplifying factor, as it still remains today.
> Present day, we see CO2 rising, at a rate not seen in millions of years. Whether historically it has 'lagged or led' the temperature change isn't relevant. If they are positively correlated, any 'lag' is bound to be short-lived, and was in fact predicted in 1990.
> You can bet there will be changes, some good, some bad. Sea level rise will spell social upheaval for many people,and that will be on top of the 'normal' droughts, flood, pestilence, that may or may not increase with a warmer world. On the other hand, the growing season may increase for some.
> Aside from some cherry-picked emails that are often out of context, the evidence for rapid climate change outweighs the evidence against it. And yes joebill, its mainly due to fossil fuels. Where do you think all that carbon goes when it gets burned? Some ends up in the ocean, some ends up in plants, and some ends up in the atmosphere.
> ...


Yes, our role is to live our lives, REALLY live them, not spend them fretting about what we cannot change, because we have no idea if we can change anything or not. Certainly have not so far, in spite of spending tens of millions. You already know that with maximum effort to induce fear into the populace, you have only produced a massive yawn, and as far as I'm concerned, that is all it merits.

You have also heard that BY THE NUMBERS, the earth's temperature cannot be radically altered by a 10% increase of insulation in less than 1000 years, and that makes sense to me. Too much mass, too little temp difference to change things overnight.

Yes, we can both be wrong. If I'm wrong, I knew at an early age that human life would not last forever on this rock. If you are wrong, the same thing applies. Only a matter of timing.

Please don't waste your life thinking that you can control eternity. It's a fool's errand, and despite the fact that we disagree, I'm convinced that you are no fool..........live long and prosper......but prospering is more important than living long, because we really can't control that..........Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Where is your 800 years of CO2 lag, Joebill? Maybe that happens sometimes in the past - there are indeed a great many variables that go into a healthy, functioning climate. Smokestacks in every country spewing fumes really don't tie into the picture.
> 
> Honestly, we don't need to see using fossil fuels regardless. They're hazardous to transport and cause massive environmental degradation no matter how you flip the coin. And stop calling it a religion. As a Christian, we really don't have the right to say that others have a religion and then make fun of it, because you set yourself up for rediculment. If you were an atheist, it would be different - then I would consider it insulting. But as it stands it just sounds contradictory - you have a religion, then you accuse others of having one as if it's a bad thing. And just to be clear, environmentalism is not a religion - it's just about wanting to be good stewards of the earth so that future generations can have a nice place to live. That and we don't believe Jesus is going to come save us from ourselves, so we *&^% well better shape up.
> 
> ...


HF, Your are truly a HOOT. Finding somebody who professes to agree with you makes you right, in every instance. i wish the world worked that way. I could be emporer of the universe. You just go right ahead and believe whatever you want. i need a good knee-slapper when I'm feeling down, and you ALWAYS deliver......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> HF, Your are truly a HOOT. Finding somebody who professes to agree with you makes you right, in every instance. i wish the world worked that way. I could be emporer of the universe. You just go right ahead and believe whatever you want. i need a good knee-slapper when I'm feeling down, and you ALWAYS deliver......Joe


Argh... So glad I'm good for something. :lookout:


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> You have also heard that BY THE NUMBERS, the earth's temperature cannot be radically altered by a 10% increase of insulation in less than 1000 years, and that makes sense to me. Too much mass, too little temp difference to change things overnight.


 No, what I've 'heard' was some random commenter on a blog post CLAIM it, no one offered up any actual numbers. And I believe the word you are going for is 'INSOLATION', not 'insulation'.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> No, what I've 'heard' was some random commenter on a blog post CLAIM it, no one offered up any actual numbers. And I believe the word you are going for is 'INSOLATION', not 'insulation'.


Actually, greenhouse gasses have the effect of preventing the escape of heat;
INSULATION, if you will. INSOLATION would be assisting in the exposure to sunlight, which they don't....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> Actually, greenhouse gasses have the effect of preventing the escape of heat;
> INSULATION, if you will. INSOLATION would be assisting in the exposure to sunlight, which they don't....Joe


 That is not what your blogger was talking about... from your link...



> In college we students had to calculate in class, (This was a word problem in the back of our physic book) how long it would take to heat the oceans, aka, change the climate, if we increased* insulation (The sun) *by 10 %?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

By the way, that "random commenter" self-identified as a scientist working in the field. If we are going to exclude self indentification as a qualifier, and I'm more than willing to do just that, your whole 97% premise falls into tiny shards at your feet, because that is how the original crew was identified, and how most of them continue to be.

Let's just wipe the slate clean and not believe anything ANYBODY says until we confirm their pedigrees, education, politics and motivations.

I'd be interested in how many folks who are involved were convinced that we were "killing the earth with our sloth" BEFORE Al gore decided things were heating up. Now THAT would be interesting....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> That is not what your blogger was talking about... from your link...


Retention of sun's energy is INSULATION, exposure to sunlight is INSOLATION. I fail to see how switching the terms would affect the outcome of the calculation, but if you prefer the waters muddied, have it your way. ....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> Retention of sun's energy is INSULATION, exposure to sunlight is INSOLATION. I fail to see how switching the terms would affect the outcome of the calculation, but if you prefer the waters muddied, have it your way. ....Joe


 We didn't see any 'calculation', we saw a guy claiming to have done it in college. No details, but perhaps if you already believe his premise, the details don't matter.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> By the way, that "random commenter" self-identified as a scientist working in the field. If we are going to exclude self indentification as a qualifier, and I'm more than willing to do just that, your whole 97% premise falls into tiny shards at your feet, because that is how the original crew was identified, and how most of them continue to be.
> 
> Let's just wipe the slate clean and not believe anything ANYBODY says until we confirm their pedigrees, education, politics and motivations.
> 
> I'd be interested in how many folks who are involved were convinced that we were "killing the earth with our sloth" BEFORE Al gore decided things were heating up. Now THAT would be interesting....Joe


Plenty of them. Al Gore is just an easy target. For some reason, people think he started the theory or something. All he did was give it a publicity jump.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Plenty of them. Al Gore is just an easy target. For some reason, people think he started the theory or something. All he did was give it a publicity jump.


Exactly my point. All those had already made up their mind that humanity needed to clean up it's act and jumped on the bandwagon of manmade global warming without a second thought, because it gave them a hint of legitimacy, not because they cared one way or another if it is true. I have heard them admit as much. Not just once or twice, either.

"The phrase most common is "well, even if the planet is not heating we need to...." followed by a long list of taxes, restricted freedoms, punishments, and usually something about animals and fishies that are suffering.

Y'all are every bit as willing to dismiss proven experts in their field as you are to accept the rantings of anybgody on the street, because, after all, the experts who passed muster on this originally were "self qualified".

The fact that the climategate emails were dismissed in court, I guess, also proves that OJ was innocent? You act like that was proof of something besides folks acting in their own best interest. 

If the "threat" was little green men from space supposedly getting ready to invade and the only cure was the same one proposed for global warming, you'd have jumped right astraddle and sunk in the spurs, just like you do for global warming. Any threat or motivation will suffice, or none at all. 

I have to go INSOLATE myself before it gets too hot out......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Exactly my point. All those had already made up their mind that humanity needed to clean up it's act and jumped on the bandwagon of manmade global warming without a second thought, because it gave them a hint of legitimacy, not because they cared one way or another if it is true. I have heard them admit as much. Not just once or twice, either.


Don't apply that "logic" to me. I'm on the side of man-made global warming because that's where the evidence points. You seem to think I've blindly accepted it, instead of what I actually have done, which was to spend literally hundreds of hours studying the issue. So if you can prove AGW is not happening, by all means, I've love to ditch it and buy an Escalade. WAY more comfortable than my Prius.



joebill said:


> "The phrase most common is "well, even if the planet is not heating we need to...." followed by a long list of taxes, restricted freedoms, punishments, and usually something about animals and fishies that are suffering.


Uh-huh, again, you write off environmentalists as quacks. Tell me, why do you think your rivers are (hopefully) clean? Why do you think you can breath your air freely? Go ahead and move to a country like China or India with dismal environmental rules and choke.



joebill said:


> Y'all are every bit as willing to dismiss proven experts in their field as you are to accept the rantings of anybgody on the street, because, after all, the experts who passed muster on this originally were "self qualified".


Assumptions again. 



joebill said:


> The fact that the climategate emails were dismissed in court, I guess, also proves that OJ was innocent? You act like that was proof of something besides folks acting in their own best interest.


The OJ case is an isolated example. Mostly it proves the rich and powerful can get away with murder. Guess which side of this argument has the most money?



joebill said:


> If the "threat" was little green men from space supposedly getting ready to invade and the only cure was the same one proposed for global warming, you'd have jumped right astraddle and sunk in the spurs, just like you do for global warming. Any threat or motivation will suffice, or none at all.
> 
> I have to go INSOLATE myself before it gets too hot out......Joe


More assumptions. Being a skeptic, that's all you have to rely upon.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Heritagefarm said:


> Assumptions again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn't look like Al Gore and Leo DeHypocrito are hurting too bad to me.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Plenty of them. Al Gore is just an easy target. For some reason, people think he started the theory or something. All he did was give it a publicity jump.



Yup. We were studying this in 100 level courses in college. 1997.
For people who understand basic science, there really is no debate whether it's happening. The debate really needs to be the ethics and legality of the misinformation spread by petroleum lobbyists and right leaning medias involvement with the pseudoscience that is global warming denial....


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Doesn't look like Al Gore and Leo DeHypocrito are hurting too bad to me.


So it's OK when oil lobbyists and CEOs make barrels of money, but not OK when the green enery folks due? Nice double standard there. They're putting their money where their mouths are. 



fireweed farm said:


> Yup. We were studying this in 100 level courses in college. 1997.
> For people who understand basic science, there really is no debate whether it's happening. The debate really needs to be the ethics and legality of the misinformation spread by petroleum lobbyists and right leaning medias involvement with the pseudoscience that is global warming denial....


Bingo.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Posted by Heritage farms;
"The OJ case is an isolated example. Mostly it proves the rich and powerful can get away with murder. Guess which side of this argument has the most money?" quote

Well, now, let's see. We have the entire Hollywood elite who prefer their fiction to extend to real life, then there is the entire Washington DC elite, anxious to extend and expand government until it swallows the private sector, then the elite of all of the STATE governments, eager for the same reasons, PLUS all the outfits like Solyndra, who got a grant forf 250 MILLION dollars from the Obama administration, did a lot of fundraising for him, then went bankrupt......they were big greenies in the solar battery business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/gIQAtAHYwO_page.html

LOTs of that going on, and every one of those guys LOVE global warming theory, because our government leaks money like a collander when anybody talks green. Those guys all did pretty well personallly, as did Obama's campaign fund. No poor folks amongst THAT list, so let's prowl a bit further.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/soly...rgy-programs/2011/12/14/gIQA4HllHP_story.html

Of course, all the folks who worked at Soylndra got special government aid when the place went belly-up, because they were on Obama's fave list, so I'm sure they still like green stuff (aside from the money, Imean, or do I?)

Now, let's exame some lower income folks. I'm sure that they love having their heating bills increase and those out-of-work coal miners don't mind having the government paint them as being the cause of the end of the world because of their jobs. Also, I'm sure that nobody minds the 80 billion dollars Obama pumped into green companies during the stimulus, 10% of which went to failed or failing companies. Poor folks can retrieve and sell the scrap metals from the sites.

http://dailysignal.com//2012/10/18/president-obamas-taxpayer-backed-green-energy-failures/

BUT, we might as well consult the experts.

https://www.isidewith.com/poll/965637/289925060

Looks to me like if you check the ladder graph, the top incomes are more likely to be believers than the ones on the lower rungs. Small wonder. Believing in global warming pays well, for those who know how to prostitute themselves, and who would know better than the ones in the $200K range?

Not fair, i know, but you have to admit, a whole lot of folks have GOTTEN rich from global warming, and it hasn't slowed down a bit.......Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

fireweed farm said:


> Yup. We were studying this in 100 level courses in college. 1997.
> For people who understand basic science, there really is no debate whether it's happening. The debate really needs to be the ethics and legality of the misinformation spread by petroleum lobbyists and right leaning medias involvement with the pseudoscience that is global warming denial....


Yeah, let's suspend the first amendment for everyone who does not believe. Exactly what our nation is based on, emperial proclomations and burning the witches.

The constitution has a ban on a state religion, just so you know.....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Last time I checked, oil companies actually spend some of their money on R&D, wages to employees and stuff like that. It doesn't pump itself out of the ground. Not to mention all of the people that have invested in their stock. Some people actually invest their hard earned money in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, 401 Ks, IRAs and stuff like that. Some people, don't do it directly, but their pension comes in part from money invested for them. So when we start condemning big oil, lets make sure we aren't being a tad hypocritical. 

People that jet set around the world speaking at climate change rallies, dining on mussels in Brussels, many times on other people's dime, don't have nearly the beneficiary list that the oil industry does, yet have similar bank statements.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You said;

"So it's OK when oil lobbyists and CEOs make barrels of money, but not OK when the green enery folks due? Nice double standard there. They're putting their money where their mouths are".

Wrong. In most cases, in fact at least 80 BILLION dollars worth, they are putting OUR money where their mouths are.

Oil companies, coal companies, etc. don't operate off of public funds. They are smart enough to show a profit using their own money, even when the competition is funded by public dollars and the government claims they are going to cause the end of the world.

If the greenies had to raise public funds from stock sales like any other business, most would be lucky to get enough to open a shoeshine stand, because they are obviously a house of cards.......Joe


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Last time I checked, oil companies actually spend some of their money on R&D, wages to employees and stuff like that. It doesn't pump itself out of the ground. Not to mention all of the people that have invested in their stock. Some people actually invest their hard earned money in stocks, bonds, mutual funds, 401 Ks, IRAs and stuff like that. Some people, don't do it directly, but their pension comes in part from money invested for them. So when we start condemning big oil, lets make sure we aren't being a tad hypocritical.
> .


You could say that about abortion doctors and executioners. We NEED them to keep the economy stable.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

joebill said:


> Yeah, let's suspend the first amendment for everyone who does not believe. Exactly what our nation is based on, emperial proclomations and burning the witches.
> 
> The constitution has a ban on a state religion, just so you know.....Joe



Your comment has nothing to do with with the discussion but nice try to derail. 

If some dumb kid keeps saying "2+2 is 5", do you just claim he has a religion? No, he's dumb and has a lot to learn.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You said;
> 
> "So it's OK when oil lobbyists and CEOs make barrels of money, but not OK when the green enery folks due? Nice double standard there. They're putting their money where their mouths are".
> 
> ...


Government subsidies? That's something the oil industry is very familiar with.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...es-getting-10m-a-minute-in-subsidies-says-imf



> Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (Â£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.
> 
> The IMF calls the revelation âshockingâ and says the figure is an âextremely robustâ estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the worldâs governments.
> 
> The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.


So, some of it is conjecture based on increasingly bad weather caused by a warming/shifting climate. But go ahead of find even $1T of subsidies for the green industry.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

What a bunch of hogwash. Really. They are calling health care an oil subsidy. They are calling cleanup a subsidy. I'm sure they are calling paying some hippy college professor to dream this nutty stuff up a subsidy.

Trillions of those projected dollars involved no money changing hands.

I'll tell you what a subsidy is, the government, they don't do anything, but they are subsidized right and left. They get people to believe that we are running out of oil, using the education system that they broke, so that they can justify charging more for gas, and they are making way more profit off of it than the oil companies are.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

barnbilder said:


> What a bunch of hogwash. Really. They are calling health care an oil subsidy. They are calling cleanup a subsidy. I'm sure they are calling paying some hippy college professor to dream this nutty stuff up a subsidy.
> 
> Trillions of those projected dollars involved no money changing hands.
> 
> I'll tell you what a subsidy is, the government, they don't do anything, but they are subsidized right and left. They get people to believe that we are running out of oil, using the education system that they broke, so that they can justify charging more for gas, and they are making way more profit off of it than the oil companies are.


We are not running out of oil. I wish we were but we're not. If we were we would already be doing those things we have that we can do. Like the laser heated trash burning plants they use in Japan. 

Read an article similar to this in the Miami Herald when I was working for FEMA back in the day. 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-09-09-fla-county-trash_x.htm

Never built it to my knowledge. Why?

I still say this argument should be null and void. We *all *agree that we need cleaner fuel. Lets spend our resources on this and not arguing over whether its man made or not. Who in their right mind cares? Lets just 

Dooooooooo something besides fight about it. Its counterproductive.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> What a bunch of hogwash. Really. They are calling health care an oil subsidy. They are calling cleanup a subsidy. I'm sure they are calling paying some hippy college professor to dream this nutty stuff up a subsidy.
> 
> Trillions of those projected dollars involved no money changing hands.
> 
> I'll tell you what a subsidy is, the government, they don't do anything, but they are subsidized right and left. They get people to believe that we are running out of oil, using the education system that they broke, so that they can justify charging more for gas, and they are making way more profit off of it than the oil companies are.


Some of it's a bit of a stretch, but it adds up. Health care can definitely be calculated if you take into consideration the health hazards associated with mining coal. How about burning the stuff - in other countries they don't use filters like we do. There's a reason a Canadian firm is selling canned air. Yes, that's right, they're seriously selling canned air like in that movie Spaceballs. Fresh, untainted air. Because someone dumped too many emissions into the air. Roads, infrastructure, land management. The oil industry has the works. Even Obama's been kowtowing to them lately. They have all the power, and if you believe otherwise, it's only that, a belief.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

What no global warming? I was hoping by the time I retired Florida would have moved to New York so I wouldn't have to move to Florida. I wanted to plant orange trees in my old age here in Niagara County. When the best climatologists in the nation say global warming is a hoax I believe them. For those who have paid attention, global warming has been discredited by recent research. That is why the proponents of global warming have to keep doctoring the data. Climate change, there has alway been climate change since the earth came into being. Weather cycles come and go. Any look into ancient climates on earth show CO2 has been even higher in certain ice ages than it is now. Insolation (incoming solar radiation) is the major cause of climate change. People who believe in global warming are the type who believe Guam might capsize if we put too much military equipment on the island.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

BlackFeather said:


> What no global warming? I was hoping by the time I retired Florida would have moved to New York so I wouldn't have to move to Florida. I wanted to plant orange trees in my old age here in Niagara County. When the best climatologists in the nation say global warming is a hoax I believe them. For those who have paid attention, global warming has been discredited by recent research. That is why the proponents of global warming have to keep doctoring the data. Climate change, there has alway been climate change since the earth came into being. Weather cycles come and go. Any look into ancient climates on earth show CO2 has been even higher in certain ice ages than it is now. Insolation (incoming solar radiation) is the major cause of climate change. People who believe in global warming are the type who believe Guam might capsize if we put too much military equipment on the island.


What recent research? The studies I've read point to AGW.
And, and here's that solar chart for you:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/solact.html









Bonk.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Heritagefarm said:


> Government subsidies? That's something the oil industry is very familiar with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well Oncor Power (as well as the other investor owned utilities [there are five]) in Texas was mandated by Governor Bush to put aside 5% of net profits to energy conservation. The start date was 2000. Oncor's net profits in 2009 was 256 million so 5% is 12,800,000/year. 

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1445146/000119312510039632/dex99f.htm

16 years in the making that is 204,800,000 for only one of the five. Times 5 would equal 1 billion. 

Now how is this a subsidy you ask? Because they get back dollar for dollar that money back in tax credits, selling the excess Texas energy they saved for Texans (at 12 cents kwh) to California at a much higher price (23 kwh). And in kind eco generating plants at half price paid for by carbon credits from guilty people. 

That's Texas alone. Now times that times 50 states and see what you get. There is more than a meager billion in the pro global warming side being spent on corruption alone.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mreynolds said:


> Well Oncor Power (as well as the other investor owned utilities [there are five]) in Texas was mandated by Governor Bush to put aside 5% of net profits to energy conservation. The start date was 2000. Oncor's net profits in 2009 was 256 million so 5% is 12,800,000/year.
> 
> http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1445146/000119312510039632/dex99f.htm
> 
> ...


Um I'm really bad at reading through ledgers. Can you provide a more specific example of energy companies being forced to conserve energy and how it's affecting them?

In rebuttal, here's this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/



> It found that the amount of money flowing through third-party, pass-through foundations like DonorsTrust and Donors Capital, whose funding cannot be traced, has risen dramatically over the past five years.
> In all, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010.
> Meanwhile the traceable cash flow from more traditional sources, such as Koch Industries and ExxonMobil, has disappeared.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

In a nutshell, the investor owned utilities wanted to de-regulate here in Texas. Governor Bush said they could if they spent 5% of net profits in energy conservation. The start date was 2000 the year he got the POTUS. 

Now this wasn't exactly forced. Let me begin with Y2K. Year 1998. The east coast had major concerns about the grid and Y2K. So there were several tests done between '98 and '99 concerning grid. I had friends in the higher ups at the electric utilities and they told me that for 10 seconds at a time one time zone would shift all power to the earlier time zone to see if they could support the grid in case of Y2K failure. They could. The theory was that if New York or any of the east coast fell off line they could support it at the cost of a blackout before midnight just long enough to reboot the system. Texas/TVA and any other large generators could keep "anarchy" from happening. By the time it got to the west coast the problem could be solved. 

Now what was really discovered was this. Texas could conserve energy here and sell the excess to high end markets. Ship it at the speed of light because all the grid is interconnected now. It was made sure it was 20 years ago. So conserving energy was top priority so they could make more money. Cali was calling for people to shut off power at certain times during the day so Texas stepped in and supplied the extra power needed. 

At a nominal fee of course. 

It was easy with a mandated law with a matching tax credit for all money spent so easy money for them. But prices here never went down. 

Also, with the carbon credits coming of age, they could buy eco generating plants at half price because they were built with guilt money from concerned people who bought into the early man made GW hype. They called them energy credits in Texas but they were one and the same. 

Neither side is without guilt.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> The OJ case is an isolated example. Mostly it proves the rich and powerful can get away with murder. Guess which side of this argument has the most money?


 Well, since it is in the various government's best interest that AGW is really happening, I would say that the pro-AGW side has the most money, and the most power.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Well, since it is in the various government's best interest that AGW is really happening, I would say that the pro-AGW side has the most money, and the most power.


How is increasingly extreme weather in the government's favor? I'm sure even the Presidents don't want to blown, flooded, or roasted out of their homes:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...gs-effect-on-the-weather?CMP=share_btn_fb#_=_



> was initially skeptical of man-made climate change, but by the late 1990s I was witnessing the apparent symptoms of a warming climate. They were showing up on my weather map with greater frequency and ferocity. I didnât set out to talk about climate volatility and weather disruption, but by the turn of the 21st century this warming seemed to be flavoring much of the weather I was tracking, turning up the volume of extremes, loading the dice for weather weirding. Multiple strands of data confirm Earth has a low-grade fever, a warming trend that transcends periodic heat released from El NiÃ±o.
> 
> People ask âWhatâs a couple of degrees, Paul?â Well, when was the last time you were a couple of degrees warmer? Chances are you felt miserable. And there were visible, tangible symptoms: sweating, chills, headaches, nausea. Your physician popped a thermometer in your mouth and confirmed you had a fever. Chances are you didnât make a fuss, argue with the doctor, or deny the diagnosis.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> How is increasingly extreme weather in the government's favor? I'm sure even the Presidents don't want to blown, flooded, or roasted out of their homes:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environm...gs-effect-on-the-weather?CMP=share_btn_fb#_=_



Government's feed off of fear. They gain strength from it. While I agree that, perhaps, there is some human generated addition to the change in climate, I simply don't buy the "sky is falling" rhetoric. Governments gain strength from such rhetoric, and it is in their best interests to put forth as much of it as possible.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> Government's feed off of fear. They gain strength from it. While I agree that, perhaps, there is some human generated addition to the change in climate, I simply don't buy the "sky is falling" rhetoric. Governments gain strength from such rhetoric, and it is in their best interests to put forth as much of it as possible.


Corrupt government will feed off anything they can find, in that case. Terrorism and economics usually work much better for generating fear than weather theories that are practically untestable by normal people.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Corrupt government will feed off anything they can find, in that case. Terrorism and economics usually work much better for generating fear than weather theories that are practically untestable by normal people.


 I said they feed off of fear. Fear of terrorists, economic collapse, AGW, it all comes back to fear.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Farmerga said:


> I said they feed off of fear. Fear of terrorists, economic collapse, AGW, it all comes back to fear.


It doesn't render illegitimate the initial arguments, though.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> It doesn't render illegitimate the initial arguments, though.


It does bring the "sky is falling" rhetoric into question.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

While this is a fascinating conversation, and global warming is a topic that can lead to endless arguments over feedback mechanisms, statistical validity, and political machinations, in another 15 years it won't much matter anyway. Starting in 2030, it will get a fair bit colder. Think little ice age colder. Shepard et al. published a really neat paper in the Astrophysical journal predicting that the solar output would drop by ~80% by 2030-2032, and further predicted a Maunder minimum associated little ice age, which will effectively shut down the global warming proponents, since all of their models assume a steady state energy output from the sun. 

So, how well insulated is your house?

Loki


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

hoddedloki said:


> While this is a fascinating conversation, and global warming is a topic that can lead to endless arguments over feedback mechanisms, statistical validity, and political machinations, in another 15 years it won't much matter anyway. Starting in 2030, it will get a fair bit colder. Think little ice age colder. Shepard et al. published a really neat paper in the Astrophysical journal predicting that the solar output would drop by ~80% by 2030-2032, and further predicted a Maunder minimum associated little ice age, which will effectively shut down the global warming proponents, since all of their models assume a steady state energy output from the sun.
> 
> So, how well insulated is your house?
> 
> Loki


In 2030, they will still be admonishing us "It's coming!, this cooling is only temproary!"

As to what advantage fear is to government, the real question is, if Al Gore did not see an advantge, why did he kick the whole thing off and invite every TV weatherman in the nation to come to washington dc and be brainwashed?

O course it's an advantage, not only to government, but to individuals IN government. Nancy Pelosi, highly invested in Boone Picken's schemes AND promoting them on the house floor at the time. They are ALL investors, they ALL have and use inside info in ways that send mere mortals to prison.

Gore CERTAINLY saw an advantage, and made many many millions.

Add in the blatant pattern where, for instance,

Obama promothes global warmning
gives 250 million dollar loan to soylndra
Soylndra gives vast piles of cash to Obama's campaign fund, plus actively fundraises for him
As predicted by the previous administration who refused them the money, soylndra goes broke and doesn't pay back the loan.
Net result, Obama gets to use taxpayer money in his campaign. Same old story.

Next emergency, "our infrastructure is falling apart" Get stimulus money to repair it, use money as slush fund to repay supporters and unions and others for getting him elected instead of fixing infrastructure. Later joked about "shovel ready jobs" as though anybody who had believed that was what the money was for in the first place was an idiot. i concur.

By the way, instead of an advanced battery, how about we just go straight for John Galt's motor?.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hoddedloki said:


> While this is a fascinating conversation, and global warming is a topic that can lead to endless arguments over feedback mechanisms, statistical validity, and political machinations, in another 15 years it won't much matter anyway. Starting in 2030, it will get a fair bit colder. Think little ice age colder. Shepard et al. published a really neat paper in the Astrophysical journal predicting that the solar output would drop by ~80% by 2030-2032, and further predicted a Maunder minimum associated little ice age, which will effectively shut down the global warming proponents, since all of their models assume a steady state energy output from the sun.
> 
> So, how well insulated is your house?
> 
> Loki


Any cooling generated by the sun would, in all likeliness, not be enough to compensate for AGW. I'm not saying I can guess when the sun will go into a quiet period, but we may not need to worry about it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

hoddedloki said:


> While this is a fascinating conversation, and global warming is a topic that can lead to endless arguments over feedback mechanisms, statistical validity, and political machinations, in another 15 years it won't much matter anyway. Starting in 2030, it will get a fair bit colder. Think little ice age colder. Shepard et al. published a really neat paper in the Astrophysical journal predicting that the solar output would drop by ~80% by 2030-2032, and further predicted a Maunder minimum associated little ice age, which will effectively shut down the global warming proponents, since all of their models assume a steady state energy output from the sun.
> 
> So, how well insulated is your house?
> 
> Loki


Ugh; this old canard again. The study measured output of sunspot activity, not solar output of heat. The change in heat output, though it may well occur, is predicted to be negligible.

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mini-ice-age-hoopla-giant.html

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/06/17/are-we-headed-for-a-new-ice-age/


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

joebill said:


> In 2030, they will still be admonishing us "It's coming!, this cooling is only temproary!"
> 
> As to what advantage fear is to government, the real question is, if Al Gore did not see an advantge, why did he kick the whole thing off and invite every TV weatherman in the nation to come to washington dc and be brainwashed?
> 
> ...


Is this what passes for honest, respectful debate where you're from? If you have evidence to refute what has been shown to you, present it. Otherwise, you're just ranting.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Raeven said:


> Is this what passes for honest, respectful debate where you're from? If you have evidence to refute what has been shown to you, present it. Otherwise, you're just ranting.


It is relating facts, concerning the history of politicos making use of anything they can to create fear and extract tax dollars for their own use, limit personal freedoms, attack private property rights and establish the federal government as the ultimate witholder or dispensor of rights.

If you can refute anything that I have presented to you along this line, present it, otherwise you are just blustering to cover what you know to be true.

Plenty of scientists willing to step up to the line and question the supposedly "settled" subject of man made global warming,( please read the first post in this thread) and you folks always claim they are charlatons, so not much use refuting anything you say, because you all have your fingers in you ears, shouting "I CAN"T HEAR YOU"

However, questioning politico's MOTIVES for lying is completely over the top. They have the best motives for lying that could possibly exist, and they not only are good at it, they have had TONS of practice.

If you believe anything they say on the surface, you need to check your premise.......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> It is relating facts, concerning the history of politicos making use of anything they can to create fear and extract tax dollars for their own use, limit personal freedoms, attack private property rights and establish the federal government as the ultimate witholder or dispensor of rights.
> 
> If you can refute anything that I have presented to you along this line, present it, otherwise you are just blustering to cover what you know to be true.
> 
> ...


No, it's because most of the time the skeptics cherry pick, use incorrect facts, skew the data, use logical fallacies, and are often funded directly or indirectly by oil money. No bias there I'm sure!


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> No, it's because most of the time the skeptics cherry pick, use incorrect facts, skew the data, use logical fallacies, and are often funded directly or indirectly by oil money. No bias there I'm sure!


See, you have no idea as to anything about that guy, except he does not agree with you. That means he has to be a villian, liar, employee of Satan.

How about me? tell me who I am working for?

This stuff is so common that it used to be a theme on the cartoon page of the Saturday Evening Post, with the wino standing with a sandwitch sign proclaiming "the end is near", and back then, everybody KNEW it was a joke.

You still have not indicated to me that you believe that your reccomendations can stop man-made global warming. How about it?

Pretend that you are emperer for a year. Can you stop it? If not, why are we using our time and money to fight a losing battle, when we could be using it to prepare? We have the best technology in the history of the world. We keep guys alive near absolute zero, year around. We can't stand a few degrees of extra heat?

I know a con job when I see it, even if you do not. this is nothing but a system of manipulation, and I am ashamed to admit that it is working, for the most part. Folks are so eager to do the right thing, they will let somebody else define for them what it is.......Sad........Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

That is the telling point of this debate. 100% of the 97% of the 32% of scientists believe in man made global warming. With the technological prowess available, if they were really certain, they could do something about it. Roll out tin foil on the ocean, (or a thin film of buoyant reflective polymer, or a genetically engineered reflective algae bloom). But that would be admitting that ocean temperature plays a big roll in weather, and co2 levels in the air. Or admitting that we aren't able to affect the weather. It seems like the only answer they have is oil is bad.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> See, you have no idea as to anything about that guy, except he does not agree with you. That means he has to be a villian, liar, employee of Satan.
> 
> How about me? tell me who I am working for?
> 
> ...


That's not a good analogy. We can keep men alive at that temp because we have extra resources. The earth is finite, and climate change aside for the moment, if we don't curb our consumption, we WILL run out of resources. Why do you think folks are already in investing in asteroid mining?

How do you feel when you have a fever? Your temp is only off by a few degrees, but I bet you feel pretty crappy. Now think of the whole earth getting a temp. It's an organism - a giant, teaming breathing biosphere. I'm trying to use basic science here, am I going too fast?

Now for our next scenario, generate several thousand random numbers in Excel. Now take their average. Now try to change the average by changing individual numbers by a few notches. 

Without even doing that, I'm sure you can tell, it's going to take a lot of manipulation to make the average change. That's why it's so worrisome that the average global temp is increasing - it's REALLY HARD TO DO!


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> That is the telling point of this debate. 100% of the 97% of the 32% of scientists believe in man made global warming. With the technological prowess available, if they were really certain, they could do something about it. Roll out tin foil on the ocean, (or a thin film of buoyant reflective polymer, or a genetically engineered reflective algae bloom). But that would be admitting that ocean temperature plays a big roll in weather, and co2 levels in the air. Or admitting that we aren't able to affect the weather. It seems like the only answer they have is oil is bad.


Do you have a better solution?


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Do you have a better solution?


There isn't going to BE a solution as long as everybody is getting what they want. that's the point.

It's a perfect machine for the transfer of power and money out of the hands of the American citizen. Why would anybody in a position to change that ever want to?

If they wanted to, they would first be striving for a trade embargo with China, because they are the major problem, not my 1 ton chevy. ENCOURAGE oil pumping and mining HERE, where we do it more cleanly than they do it THERE. Lots of stuff we do better that should be done here instead of elsewhere. You could follow that theme forever and find ways to improve things and improve our economy at the same time.

Next, they would be encouraging some preperation. developing heat resistant strains of veggies, studying how to improve agriculture in a heating situation. dredging reservoirs deeper and narrower to limit evaporation. Many other things to help people along the way. Why are there no major attempts at prep?

Because it's boring and there is more money in discarding existing technology that works just fine and creating silly stuff that encourages new companies that have to have government subsidies and grants and loans that put them at the mercy of government leeches.

I do not question that you and a lot of others are true believers, because for it to work, you have to exist. So do I, because no manufactured emergency is complete without an enemy who is "doing you wrong". The enemy is what brings forth the emotion required to dispense with logic. The cause requires anger and anger prevents clear thought. No enemy, no cause.

To believe all this stuff, I would have to take the measurements myself, or have them done by somebody with no axe to grind, and I know of no such entity with the cash to pull it off. Even then, the whole issue is far too complex to reduce to a few equations, as observed by the original folks from "climategate" before they were brought into line. They maintained that it was junk science with no rules except to get the reqired answers, and I'm convinced that has not changed. So are many others.

But look inward for just a moment. You have no inclination to claim we can stop it. NONE. yet your efforts do not go to warning folks that they need to prepare and helping them work on ways they might do so. Neither does anybody else. Seems that therein would lie the greater good.

As for me, I have always known that neither I nor the human race would last forever in our currrent form. For me, if this is the end, it is also a new beginning, and I look to both this world and the next with optimism.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> There isn't going to BE a solution as long as everybody is getting what they want. that's the point.
> 
> It's a perfect machine for the transfer of power and money out of the hands of the American citizen. Why would anybody in a position to change that ever want to?



Yes - what if climate change is a giant manufactured hoax and it's sole purpose is to wrest power from the general populous? You think Haven't thought of that? It would be fairly convenient, but I highly doubt if anyone could craft such an elaborate hoax involving an entire science field. Your conspiracy would involve many world governments, many scientific organizations, many people, and most universities.



joebill said:


> If they wanted to, they would first be striving for a trade embargo with China, because they are the major problem, not my 1 ton chevy. ENCOURAGE oil pumping and mining HERE, where we do it more cleanly than they do it THERE. Lots of stuff we do better that should be done here instead of elsewhere. You could follow that theme forever and find ways to improve things and improve our economy at the same time.


Yes, we should be encouraging China to clean up their act. In case you weren't aware, it was free market capitalism that sent all those jobs overseas, not government regulations. Sure, they're hard to work with and many of them are indeed useless, but many also have a good point to them. I'm sure the goal of OSHA is just to shut businesses down, right?



joebill said:


> Next, they would be encouraging some preperation. developing heat resistant strains of veggies, studying how to improve agriculture in a heating situation. dredging reservoirs deeper and narrower to limit evaporation. Many other things to help people along the way. Why are there no major attempts at prep?
> 
> Because it's boring and there is more money in discarding existing technology that works just fine and creating silly stuff that encourages new companies that have to have government subsidies and grants and loans that put them at the mercy of government leeches.


Of course it's boring. Why do you think so much of the public doesn't really even know what climate change is or the driving factors? And some panties are indeed working on making plants more drought resistant. But in case you haven't noticed, it's really hard to grow plants in a desert without massive amounts of water. We already almost destroyed the plains with the Dust Bowl - the ecosystem is much more fragile than you've been led to believe. Even deforesting a few thousand acres affects the climate locally.



joebill said:


> I do not question that you and a lot of others are true believers, because for it to work, you have to exist. So do I, because no manufactured emergency is complete without an enemy who is "doing you wrong". The enemy is what brings forth the emotion required to dispense with logic. The cause requires anger and anger prevents clear thought. No enemy, no cause.


I don't "believe" it. I don't have to. You're the one with "beliefs." If enough evidence comes along to disprove AGW, I will ditch it and rail along with the oil people. Would you do the same if someone presented evidence that showed God didn't exist?



joebill said:


> To believe all this stuff, I would have to take the measurements myself, or have them done by somebody with no axe to grind, and I know of no such entity with the cash to pull it off. Even then, the whole issue is far too complex to reduce to a few equations, as observed by the original folks from "climategate" before they were brought into line. They maintained that it was junk science with no rules except to get the reqired answers, and I'm convinced that has not changed. So are many others.


You can't take the measurements yourself, but you can take the bulk data and run the numbers yourself. They're available online for public use. 



joebill said:


> But look inward for just a moment. You have no inclination to claim we can stop it. NONE. yet your efforts do not go to warning folks that they need to prepare and helping them work on ways they might do so. Neither does anybody else. Seems that therein would lie the greater good.
> 
> As for me, I have always known that neither I nor the human race would last forever in our currrent form. For me, if this is the end, it is also a new beginning, and I look to both this world and the next with optimism.....Joe


Well that's a fatalistic attitude. "Well, we have to go sometime, so why not now?" We might kill ourselves by killing the environment and nuking each other, but it doesn't have to end that way. Real change happens at the individual level, right here, right now.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes - what if climate change is a giant manufactured hoax and it's sole purpose is to wrest power from the general populous? You think Haven't thought of that? It would be fairly convenient, but I highly doubt if anyone could craft such an elaborate hoax involving an entire science field. Your conspiracy would involve many world governments, many scientific organizations, many people, and most universities.


 I, personally don't believe it is a hoax. Climate change is real, that is a fact of nature. It can and has been measured. Where the "hoax" comes in is in the fear mongering about the possible results and the over blown claims of the ability for governments to do anything useful about it. 






> Yes, we should be encouraging China to clean up their act. In case you weren't aware, it was free market capitalism that sent all those jobs overseas, not government regulations. Sure, they're hard to work with and many of them are indeed useless, but many also have a good point to them. I'm sure the goal of OSHA is just to shut businesses down, right?


 If you look at the number of workplace injuries, prior to the advent of OSHA, you will see a definite downward trend in the number of injuries. OSHA didn't do anything to accelerate that downward trend. It is common for government to jump on a trend then take credit for the results. This can be seen, most clearly, with the so-called war on poverty. 




> Of course it's boring. Why do you think so much of the public doesn't really even know what climate change is or the driving factors? And some panties are indeed working on making plants more drought resistant. But in case you haven't noticed, it's really hard to grow plants in a desert without massive amounts of water. We already almost destroyed the plains with the Dust Bowl - the ecosystem is much more fragile than you've been led to believe. Even deforesting a few thousand acres affects the climate locally.


 That is why it makes such a good "booger man" for the government to use to gain money and power. It is boring and complicated. 




> I don't "believe" it. I don't have to. You're the one with "beliefs." If enough evidence comes along to disprove AGW, I will ditch it and rail along with the oil people. Would you do the same if someone presented evidence that showed God didn't exist?


 As has been said, time and time again, by the Atheists among us, you can't prove a negative.




> You can't take the measurements yourself, but you can take the bulk data and run the numbers yourself. They're available online for public use.


 Adjusted, or, non-adjusted numbers and by whom?




> Well that's a fatalistic attitude. "Well, we have to go sometime, so why not now?" We might kill ourselves by killing the environment and nuking each other, but it doesn't have to end that way. *Real change happens at the individual level, right here, right now
> *


 That much we can agree on. And if people were content to leave it at that, we wouldn't have such resistance to the change. The problem arises when force of government is brought to bear on the situation and lovers of freedom will, necessarily, resist.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You wrote:

"I don't "believe" it. I don't have to. You're the one with "beliefs." If enough evidence comes along to disprove AGW, I will ditch it and rail along with the oil people.?"


I disagree. If enough evidence comes along, you'll never see it. You have determined that you are right and anybody who disagrees is wrong. That ship has sailed.

It really isn't that hard to sell an idea that the majority wants to believe in. Oil companies have been everybody's enemy as long as I can rememmber, and if it can be shown that they are horrible and ruining our lives, it's a natural.

Eugenics was believed by all the "right" people in the last century, until somebody went right out and carried it to it's natural conclusion, and after that you couldn't find anyone who had EVER believed in it.

I predict that the percentage of "climate deniers" will be increasing over the coming decades. Too many predictions found to be untrue. Too many WHACOS, also, to rate it in most people's minds as serious science;

http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Annie-Sprinkle-wife-promote-ecosexuality-2354574.php

Seems like they are everywhere. Although people speak about it as a problem, they do not seem to TREAT it as a problem. They just want to talk about it and point fingers. More like a social issue.

When violent crime becomes an issue, millions of folks go out and buy guns, for instance, but where are the AGW folks spending their money to survive the "coming hot times?" I don't see it happening, which tells me most of them are paying lip service. They don't really believe it either. They look upon it as a social trend.

People's perceptions have always interested me. We have a debt aproaching 20 TRILLION dollars, unfunded liabilities for folks now living of around 127 TRILLION dollars, and nobody really believes we can ever repay it. It's something like 1.2 million per citizen, and:

"To understand the magnitude of this problem, the authors note one solution that includes all the following: &#8220;raise income taxes by 17 percent, raise payroll taxes by 24 percent, cut federal purchases by 26 percent, and cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 11 percent.&#8221;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspi...liabilities-exceed-127-trillion/#1123333210d3

THAT rarely enters the discussion when hearing about the world's problems. It's all about the survival of the fuzzytailed snotflicker in central Slobovia....Gotta love it!......Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> I disagree. If enough evidence comes along, you'll never see it. You have determined that you are right and anybody who disagrees is wrong. That ship has sailed.
> 
> It really isn't that hard to sell an idea that the majority wants to believe in. Oil companies have been everybody's enemy as long as I can rememmber, and if it can be shown that they are horrible and ruining our lives, it's a natural.


 I think your criticisms are off base. Apart from a few enviro-wacko college kids, I think most adults have capability to recognize oil and oil companies are an integral part of our industrial civilization. I think you're taking the intellectually lazy way out by pretending that is why people think CO2 will raise the global temperature. If you really want to change peoples minds and have them not think that, you'd best go and burn all chemistry, geology and meteorology books, because that is where the notion comes from. 
Perhaps you could educate us on why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and why raising the concentrations 50-100% over pre-industrial levels WON'T cause warming. Go ahead, I have an open mind, if you can provide compelling science, then I may reconsider, but so far all I have heard is the usual debunked talking points and complaints about AlGore, liberals and environmentalists.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> I think your criticisms are off base. Apart from a few enviro-wacko college kids, I think most adults have capability to recognize oil and oil companies are an integral part of our industrial civilization. I think you're taking the intellectually lazy way out by pretending that is why people think CO2 will raise the global temperature. If you really want to change peoples minds and have them not think that, you'd best go and burn all chemistry, geology and meteorology books, because that is where the notion comes from.
> Perhaps you could educate us on why CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and why raising the concentrations 50-100% over pre-industrial levels WON'T cause warming. Go ahead, I have an open mind, if you can provide compelling science, then I may reconsider, but so far all I have heard is the usual debunked talking points and complaints about AlGore, liberals and environmentalists.


I have on a few occasions already stated that of COURSE co2 is a greenhouse gas. No question! It is a somewhat less potent greenhouse gas than water vapor, but you bet it is.

I Do have a lot of problems with the bald statements being made, in view of the fact that every prediction made in the beginning has fallen flat on it's face. Lots of things impossible to quantify, are being quantified every time you look.

Is it the ONLY greenhouse gas? How much of the other greenhouse gasses are present, as opposed to the period prior to the industrial revolution? How much water vapor was there back then? Why do CO2 increases follow heating instead of the reverse?

What other factors mitigate the presense of water vapor and co2 ? How hot WILL it get? Most important, can we stop it? How?
I have read a number of scientists who give answers to these questions that get dismissed rapidly, that make a lot of sense to me.

We are also being heated from our molten core. Probably not a variable factor, but without that, our temps would be dropping.

Co2 is a pretty tiny percentage of our air. Doubling it makes it a tiny percentageX2. Exactly WHAT is the formula for calculating temperature by percentage of CO2? Since it is so "obvious" that answer should be ready to hand. of course, the answer is, "it depends" on other factors, so not so black and white is it?

AND, why the 18 year pause in warming, since things were going so swimmingly?

I;m always suspicious when somebody has all the answers and they are relitively simple ones. "It can only happen this way because of that" is rarely the case.

When you say:

"I think you're taking the intellectually lazy way out by pretending that is why people think CO2 will raise the global temperature."

i think you are wrong. I think the main reason the average adult believes that is because somebody told him so, and people keep repeating it. Obviously, that would be the tendancy, if there were no other variables, but that is not, ever, the case.

Greenhouse gasses are a fact. The way they behave is a fact. Same for sunlight.

In my opinion, most of the predictions are stabs in the dark (look how they have worked out so far) and most of the stats are the product of cooking the books by various folks who find it in their best interests to do so. There are SO many more factors than sun and CO2 that have never been looked at, let alone quantified, that doing so would take 50 years at a minimum.

How are the plankton populations in the sea? How's about other aerobic and anaerobic critters? Things that increase, reduce, mitigate greenhouse gasses? 

What percentage of the increased CO2 comes from North America? Would it be more productive to bomb China into the stone age or tolerate their pollution?

Everybody has set out on a course that leads to.......nothing, if the estimates are anywhere near correct. It will kill us all or it will not. You can stop it or you can't. it is a natural event or it is manmade.

In nearly ever case the answer is "it can't be neither and it can't be both", and opinions vary considerably, and lots of thse opinions to the negative come from some pretty well educated dudes.

As in most things, you get to decide who to believe......and I choose to NOT believe those who have every reason to lie to me and have a LONG record of doing so.......Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Here is an experiment for the kids at home. Take two soda bottles out of a cold fridge. (They have dissolved carbon dioxide in them.) Careful not to shake them. Take off the caps and stretch a balloon over the tops. Set one back in the fridge. Set the other in a sunny window. After the one in the window heats up, move them both gently, not violently, but make waves ripple across the top. Watch the balloons. Water's saturation point is lower the warmer it gets. So if the earth heats up, for whatever reason, the oceans (which contain CO2, from fish breath, underwater volcanoes and whale farts) will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. So it's kind of a chicken and egg argument at best. I'm sure the climozealots have an answer for that, just like they have an answer for the fact that the southern ice cap is increasing. They can never say, "I don't know", because that is a sin, according to their religion.

Here are some more fun ideas, CO2 "insulation" is not really increased proportionately with the amount of CO2 that is present in the atmosphere. 

This touches on that a little.
http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> So if the earth heats up, for whatever reason, the oceans (which contain CO2, from fish breath, underwater volcanoes and whale farts) will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. So it's kind of a chicken and egg argument at best. I'm sure the climozealots have an answer for that, just like they have an answer for the fact that the southern ice cap is increasing. They can never say, "I don't know", because that is a sin, according to their religion.
> l


 Wait, now your contention is CO2 is rising because the oceans are warming?? Not sure what your driving at there.


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

> joebill said:
> 
> 
> > Is it the ONLY greenhouse gas? How much of the other greenhouse gasses are present, as opposed to the period prior to the industrial revolution? ?


 Of course CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, and I don't know anyone who thinks it is. Even though CO2 is a tiny fraction of the total atmosphere, its been calculated that CO2 is responsible for between 10-25% of the total greenhouse effect. Do you think doubling the quantity will lead to an increase, or decrease in temps?


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

If the ocean warms up, because of the industrial revolution, or because of a combination of factors including El Nino, core radiation, and sunspots, yes, the atmospheric CO2 levels will be higher. But doubling the CO2 will not necessarily make it twice as much hotterer.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You wrote:
> 
> "I don't "believe" it. I don't have to. You're the one with "beliefs." If enough evidence comes along to disprove AGW, I will ditch it and rail along with the oil people.?"
> 
> ...


Believing you know what goes on inside my head is the height of arrogance. But I'm glad you have something to *believe* in.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Also, what is the factor that your calcs allow for the FACT that increased heat will cause increased evaporation of all bodies of water, and evaporation uses up heat? Can't leave that one out.

Then, of course, there is cloud cover. rain. Snow reflects sunshine, but burned grasses absorb it, and mammals increase CO2. Plants DECREASE it and increase Oxygen. Until we burn them, of course.

There are layer upon layer upon layer of these mitigating and altering and varying factors, each of them unquantified and largely, without eons of study and experiment, unquantifiable, working together and against one another in various ways, not always the same, because they will be together in some times and places and not in others, and by the time you have figured out 1% of the interactions, many of those factpors wil have changed.

You read the "climategate emails" where those guys acknowleged that in a larger sense, they had no idea what they were doing except delivering the answers people wanted. One segment of the country was getting warmer, one colder, no clue, truly, what temps had been more than 100 years ago.

Black and white pictures, taken off of a submarine in 1958 at the north pole floating in UNFROZEN water!

The following is not part of any argument, but thrown in as a bit of history when we start reflecting on what the car has done to/for us.

We used to go to St. Louis when I was a child around 1955, and I mentioned a forthcoming trip to my grandfather (born 1868) and he told me;

"I been to St Louis. I HATED IT. You can't breathe the air there" I asked him why, and he told me "Coal smoke, horse s==t and flies!".

Was it better before the automobile? I couldn't say. Never a bad thing to make machines better or make them use less of whatever they use, but we have to understand that there is a price for everything, and few things are as simple as our passions direct us to describe them.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

barnbilder said:


> Here is an experiment for the kids at home. Take two soda bottles out of a cold fridge. (They have dissolved carbon dioxide in them.) Careful not to shake them. Take off the caps and stretch a balloon over the tops. Set one back in the fridge. Set the other in a sunny window. After the one in the window heats up, move them both gently, not violently, but make waves ripple across the top. Watch the balloons. Water's saturation point is lower the warmer it gets. So if the earth heats up, for whatever reason, the oceans (which contain CO2, from fish breath, underwater volcanoes and whale farts) will release more CO2 into the atmosphere. So it's kind of a chicken and egg argument at best. I'm sure the climozealots have an answer for that, just like they have an answer for the fact that the southern ice cap is increasing. They can never say, "I don't know", because that is a sin, according to their religion.
> 
> Here are some more fun ideas, CO2 "insulation" is not really increased proportionately with the amount of CO2 that is present in the atmosphere.
> 
> ...



Thank you, VERY nice link......Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Also, what is the factor that your calcs allow for the FACT that increased heat will cause increased evaporation of all bodies of water, and evaporation uses up heat? Can't leave that one out.
> 
> Then, of course, there is cloud cover. rain. Snow reflects sunshine, but burned grasses absorb it, and mammals increase CO2. Plants DECREASE it and increase Oxygen. Until we burn them, of course.
> 
> ...


You throw a lot of factors out there but fail to use them for your argument aside from the wild-card of "we really don't know." Your ignorance is not superior to scientists' knowledge. Sorry.

I will offer one correction. The warming temps have what's known as positive feedback loops. These occur when something, like CO2, creates other situations that actually increase the harmful effects of CO2. One of these is cloud cover is water vapor. In a warming world, air holds more water vapor. This is why it's so humid in summer. Water vapor happens to be a GREAT greenhouse gas (GHG), which exacerbates any warming effects CO2 has.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> You throw a lot of factors out there but fail to use them for your argument aside from the wild-card of "we really don't know." Your ignorance is not superior to scientists' knowledge. Sorry.
> 
> I will offer one correction. The warming temps have what's known as positive feedback loops. These occur when something, like CO2, creates other situations that actually increase the harmful effects of CO2. One of these is cloud cover is water vapor. In a warming world, air holds more water vapor. This is why it's so humid in summer. Water vapor happens to be a GREAT greenhouse gas (GHG), which exacerbates any warming effects CO2 has.


And how did you quantify that? You want to make a prediction, you have to use a number.....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

joebill said:


> Thank you, VERY nice link......Joe


 Very nice??lol Gary Drake is widely considered a crank. He has wild ideas on just about every scientific subject there is, although his degree is in mushroom biology.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> And how did you quantify that? You want to make a prediction, you have to use a number.....Joe


This is a neat self-educating article on climate feedback loops.

http://climate.nasa.gov/resources/education/pbs_modules/lesson2Engage/

Also this:

http://www.rsmas.miami.edu/news-eve...firms-water-vapor-as-global-warming-amplifier



> ...to determine whether observed changes in atmospheric water vapor could be explained by natural or man-made causes. Using the set of climate model experiments, the researchers showed that rising water vapor in the upper troposphere *cannot be explained by natural forces, such as volcanoes and changes in solar activity, but can be explained by increased greenhouse gases, such as CO2.*
> 
> Greenhouse gases raise temperatures by trapping the Earthâs radiant heat inside the atmosphere. This warming also increases the accumulation of atmospheric water vapor, the most abundant greenhouse gas


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

greg273 said:


> Very nice??lol Gary Drake is widely considered a crank. He has wild ideas on just about every scientific subject there is, although his degree is in mushroom biology.


Maybe he ate the wrong durn 'shrooms.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You wrote;

"You throw a lot of factors out there but fail to use them for your argument aside from the wild-card of "we really don't know." Your ignorance is not superior to scientists' knowledge. Sorry."

Well, the link below is to a scientist who also believes that ignorance and "I don't know" is the only honest answer to the question "what will happen next?"

If they had it down so pat, why have they been so wrong so far? I assume, wirth your open mind, it will take you a couple of days to study that material and evaluate it, so I'll await your conclusion.....Joe


http://nov79.com/gbwm/mgws.html


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

greg273 said:


> Very nice??lol Gary Drake is widely considered a crank. He has wild ideas on just about every scientific subject there is, although his degree is in mushroom biology.


Right, he disagrees, therefore he is a crank. Begin to see a pattern here? This is not about people, it's about ideas and facts. "crank" is not a rebuttle....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

OK, some of his other stuff seems mighty crankish, I'll give you that, ....  ....but establishing a model, THEN looking for the math to support it really DID happen in the GW business, and it was full of crap. 

AND it was fully supported in spite of that, by the GW business....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You wrote;
> 
> "You throw a lot of factors out there but fail to use them for your argument aside from the wild-card of "we really don't know." Your ignorance is not superior to scientists' knowledge. Sorry."
> 
> ...


I've never even seen that site before. This is a much better skeptical website:

https://wattsupwiththat.com

He's a former meteorologist. For convenience, please read and post individual articles instead of throwing around entire websites; it'll make the argument much more manageable.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

First time i have ever read where folks amit to wanting an environmental dictatorship. Very refreshing that they come right out and say it....joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

The whole 'water is a greenhouse gas' thing has some caveats. When it is in the air as humidity, yes, it traps heat. When it forms a cloud, it reflects heat from the sun. Ever notice how it's cooler on a cloudy day? (Sorry, don't have a link to support that it is cooler on a cloudy day) If clouds get big enough, it rains, somewhere. Rain has a tendency to scrub the atmosphere of CO2 and other things. 

I think I remember reading somewhere that plants actually take in CO2, and give off oxygen. They actually like CO2. Supposedly, plants don't grow at high altitudes because of the thin air. Wouldn't it be conceivable that with more CO2 in the air, the "thin" air would have more CO2 available for plants? Meaning that trees will grow higher on some mountain ranges. Also, with more glacial melt, and more heat creating evaporation, wouldn't that tend to reverse desertification in some areas? Wouldn't more plants mean less atmospheric carbon? If it gets cold and dry again, wouldn't that carbon be trapped in a tree trunk above a timberline somewhere, or in a desert where it would not rot for a very long time?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> The whole 'water is a greenhouse gas' thing has some caveats. When it is in the air as humidity, yes, it traps heat. When it forms a cloud, it reflects heat from the sun. Ever notice how it's cooler on a cloudy day? (Sorry, don't have a link to support that it is cooler on a cloudy day) If clouds get big enough, it rains, somewhere. Rain has a tendency to scrub the atmosphere of CO2 and other things.
> 
> I think I remember reading somewhere that plants actually take in CO2, and give off oxygen. They actually like CO2. Supposedly, plants don't grow at high altitudes because of the thin air. Wouldn't it be conceivable that with more CO2 in the air, the "thin" air would have more CO2 available for plants? Meaning that trees will grow higher on some mountain ranges. Also, with more glacial melt, and more heat creating evaporation, wouldn't that tend to reverse desertification in some areas? Wouldn't more plants mean less atmospheric carbon? If it gets cold and dry again, wouldn't that carbon be trapped in a tree trunk above a timberline somewhere, or in a desert where it would not rot for a very long time?


Ok, here's the thing about clouds. Cloud cover can both reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, which is why cloud cover is cooler, and it can also warm the surface, by reflecting existing heat back to the surface. Further, warm air holds more water. The very important thing to remember here is that it takes more water for the air to reach the saturation point! This is when rain occurs. A great example of this occurs on the west coast. The air is at first cold and moist. Most of the water molds Portland and Seattle. By the time it gets over the mountain range, it's warmed up and no longer rains. This is because, as I said, warmer air takes more moisture to precipitate. 

Now, the thing about the plants liking extra CO2. In biology, (actually grazing school), we learn that plants almost always have a limiting factor OTHER than CO2. It's usually water, but it could be nitrogen, sulphur, copper, whatever. Only in a greenhouse, with every nutrient available, will plants grow fast enough to need extra CO2. That is why greenhouses pump extra CO2 in - it's the last "limiting factor." 

But you're also right to an extent. In close poximities, plants starve each other of CO2 by oxygenating the local atmosphere. Extra CO2 may contribute to better plant growth in that situation but I'm not sure if it's a large enough compensatory factor.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> The whole 'water is a greenhouse gas' thing has some caveats. When it is in the air as humidity, yes, it traps heat. When it forms a cloud, it reflects heat from the sun. Ever notice how it's cooler on a cloudy day? (Sorry, don't have a link to support that it is cooler on a cloudy day) If clouds get big enough, it rains, somewhere. Rain has a tendency to scrub the atmosphere of CO2 and other things.
> 
> I think I remember reading somewhere that plants actually take in CO2, and give off oxygen. They actually like CO2. Supposedly, plants don't grow at high altitudes because of the thin air. Wouldn't it be conceivable that with more CO2 in the air, the "thin" air would have more CO2 available for plants? Meaning that trees will grow higher on some mountain ranges. Also, with more glacial melt, and more heat creating evaporation, wouldn't that tend to reverse desertification in some areas? Wouldn't more plants mean less atmospheric carbon? If it gets cold and dry again, wouldn't that carbon be trapped in a tree trunk above a timberline somewhere, or in a desert where it would not rot for a very long time?




Yes plants 'eat' C02, and 'exhale' oxygen. That's why deforestation and the globe is a contributing factor, probably the main factor since the more fossil fuels we burn coincides with more machinery to deforest even faster, quite the cycle.

I'm pretty sure most who don't believe in GW don't get out much- and I mean travel- flying around in an airplane will show you how much forest cover around the globe is missing, fly at night and notice how many lights (towns, highways and cities are everywhere), and if you land in pretty well near any city around the world you will see the smog along the entire horizon.

If you think all that garbage in the air if of no consequence.... not much anyone can do to open your eyes.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

fireweed farm said:


> Yes plants 'eat' C02, and 'exhale' oxygen. That's why deforestation and the globe is a contributing factor, probably the main factor since the more fossil fuels we burn coincides with more machinery to deforest even faster, quite the cycle.
> 
> I'm pretty sure most who don't believe in GW don't get out much- and I mean travel- flying around in an airplane will show you how much forest cover around the globe is missing, fly at night and notice how many lights (towns, highways and cities are everywhere), and if you land in pretty well near any city around the world you will see the smog along the entire horizon.
> 
> If you think all that garbage in the air if of no consequence.... not much anyone can do to open your eyes.


I've noticed people who travel more tend to be a little more enlightened.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

That's a rather condescending and assumptive attitude to have. Not surprising coming from people of your religion, superiority being one of the key tenets. Maybe you should try stepping out of the plane and examining the ground a little. Deforestation, as you call it, we always called it logging, should be the favorite industry of the climatist. All that sequestered carbon being made into building materials, new growth gobbling up carbon as it sequesters it for the next crop, in a patchwork of regenerative biomass. Much better than a bunch of dying trees with huge crowns waiting for the next bolt of lightning to send their carbon payload heavenward. I've often wondered if land use practices of the US forest service weren't as much to blame for current carbon pollution as US oil wells were. They seem to have a policy of not allowing a single stick of wood to be cut, until a fire starts, and then they start a backfire miles away, turning acres of carbon loose. 

As for your theory of the smoky, smoggy cities, if you study history, they are a far cry from what they once were. Professional people often carried clothes to work in a bag and changed, they would be covered in soot and cinders walking a block or two, even in small towns. Every house had a coal hot water heater and stove, burned their garbage in the yard, locomotives and filth everywhere you looked. Tanneries, blacksmiths, paper mills, and all manner of industry fired with coal and spouting their effluents directly into the river. Now we have most of that done in China, so it pollutes their air instead of ours. One can only imagine what it would have looked like from a plane, if there had been planes. You can fly for miles without seeing a black soot plume nowadays.


----------



## fireweed farm (Dec 31, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> That's a rather condescending and assumptive attitude to have. Not surprising coming from people of your religion, superiority being one of the key tenets. Maybe you should try stepping out of the plane and examining the ground a little. Deforestation, as you call it, we always called it logging, should be the favorite industry of the climatist. All that sequestered carbon being made into building materials, new growth gobbling up carbon as it sequesters it for the next crop, in a patchwork of regenerative biomass. Much better than a bunch of dying trees with huge crowns waiting for the next bolt of lightning to send their carbon payload heavenward. I've often wondered if land use practices of the US forest service weren't as much to blame for current carbon pollution as US oil wells were. They seem to have a policy of not allowing a single stick of wood to be cut, until a fire starts, and then they start a backfire miles away, turning acres of carbon loose.
> 
> As for your theory of the smoky, smoggy cities, if you study history, they are a far cry from what they once were. Professional people often carried clothes to work in a bag and changed, they would be covered in soot and cinders walking a block or two, even in small towns. Every house had a coal hot water heater and stove, burned their garbage in the yard, locomotives and filth everywhere you looked. Tanneries, blacksmiths, paper mills, and all manner of industry fired with coal and spouting their effluents directly into the river. Now we have most of that done in China, so it pollutes their air instead of ours. One can only imagine what it would have looked like from a plane, if there had been planes. You can fly for miles without seeing a black soot plume nowadays.


-You sound like government infomercials from the 60's-70's explaining why we NEED to cut down trees for the safety of animals that may get hit from falling branches. 

-Condescending or of a reality based opinion? A religion?? Come on, keep those false labels to yourself.

-Tell me about the dirty cities of the past. How big were they? There was less than 1/7 the people during the industrial revolution. Cars/planes/tractors....? What is was, was smoky little cities. Nothing like today sorry.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> That's a rather condescending and assumptive attitude to have. Not surprising coming from people of your religion, superiority being one of the key tenets.


It's not superiority, it's exasperation at having to explain simple concepts over and over and over again and again and AGAIN.



barnbilder said:


> Maybe you should try stepping out of the plane and examining the ground a little. Deforestation, as you call it, we always called it logging, should be the favorite industry of the climatist. All that sequestered carbon being made into building materials, new growth gobbling up carbon as it sequesters it for the next crop, in a patchwork of regenerative biomass. Much better than a bunch of dying trees with huge crowns waiting for the next bolt of lightning to send their carbon payload heavenward. I've often wondered if land use practices of the US forest service weren't as much to blame for current carbon pollution as US oil wells were. They seem to have a policy of not allowing a single stick of wood to be cut, until a fire starts, and then they start a backfire miles away, turning acres of carbon loose.


Yay, let's just log every &^#$ forest out there. It'll survive! We don't need wildlife or trees or anything! Drilling in the national parks everyone, no more endangered species act so you can kill the wolves and bison again, Hummers for everyone! 



barnbilder said:


> As for your theory of the smoky, smoggy cities, if you study history, they are a far cry from what they once were. Professional people often carried clothes to work in a bag and changed, they would be covered in soot and cinders walking a block or two, even in small towns. Every house had a coal hot water heater and stove, burned their garbage in the yard, locomotives and filth everywhere you looked. Tanneries, blacksmiths, paper mills, and all manner of industry fired with coal and spouting their effluents directly into the river. Now we have most of that done in China, so it pollutes their air instead of ours. One can only imagine what it would have looked like from a plane, if there had been planes. You can fly for miles without seeing a black soot plume nowadays.


Again you seem to be promoting just taking down all the environmental regulations. You apparently believe your lungs can handle quite a bit.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

If you actually DO ever get down on the ground and look around, you'll notice that logging is not destroying anything. It does CHANGE things, but only temporarily. The forest is very good at eating slash, creating mountain medows, replacing the trees, sometimes with the same species, sometimes with others.

You'll hear that clear-cutting is ugly, and that is true. ugliest thing you ever saw on a mountain. You'll also hear that especailly with reseeding, in time you will never know it happened, which is also true. I don't just know these things by looking out an airplane window, either.

After a move about 30 years ago, I was prowling through a stand of Ponderosa pine on the slopes of a mesa, and the rancher dropped by to BS a bit. I said something about the "forest primeavel, and he chuckled and said, "not by a long shot" he told me, and i later confirmed, that the whole slope had been clearcut back in the 1950's.

I have found the remnants of a burned-out strike team camp in the middle of what apears to be virgin forest. Inquiries taught me that the whole area had burned long before I was born. Pretty hard for MAN to destroy a forest.

Now, if you want to see someting TRULY ugly, take a look at what mama nature does to HERSELF. In this case, i refer to the bark beetle. 

"Mountain pine beetle infestations continue to grow on public and private lands in Colorado and Wyoming. More than 1.5 million acres of forest in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming are affected by the mountain pine beetle epidemic, which was triggered by an extended drought in the late 1990s and early 2000s. 

By about 2012, beetles will have killed nearly all of the mature lodgepole trees in northern Colorado and southern Wyoming. Besides affecting watersheds, future timber production, wildlife habitat, recreation sites, transmission lines, and scenic views, beetle-killed trees also present a fuels build-up situation that could result in catastrophic wildland fires."

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/mbr/home/?cid=stelprdb5139168

I can't log any spruce where there are millions of trees to be logged unless I can get them clear of the mountain before march of that year, for fear of spreading the infestation when the beetles come out.

THIS is nature, changing herself. It is ugly, it is constant, it is unstoppable. Has always been that way and always will. What comes next? I dunno, and neither do you, but I know she hates a vaccum, so something will show up that isn't scared of or affected by bark beetles.

Really glad you brough up "deforestation" It's an excellent example of how puny man's efforts are in the face of nature. All of his efforts combined are not up to the job of wiping out a tiny beetle, even when he puts his mind to it. Mam nature does pretty much as she pleases, and we are along for the ride.....Off to town today in my BIG truck....Joe


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Heritage,

The reason you have to keep explaining "simple concepts over and over and over again and again and AGAIN," is because you are incorrect in your understanding of those 'simple' concepts, and assume that disagreement with your statements is indicative of of our inability to grasp the facts, rather than a difference in opinion. Your arguments show a basic understanding of the science, but neither an accurate or deep grasp thereof. 

Ex. Rain in Seattle. There is a lot of rain in Seattle because warm moist air comes in off the ocean and the sound, rises up and is cooled enough to cause it to dump the water (rain), and than goes over the mountains the eastern Washington, have lost most of the water vapor due to cooling. If your statement of the air being heated up as it came over Seattle was accurate, than the rain would pass over Seattle and hit the mountains. 

Ex. Logging as a forest management practice. The idea of controlled logging as part of forest management has been accepted by pretty much everyone in the forestry industry (public and private) with the glaring exception of the BLM. Most responsible parties have made predictions that have been later proven, that logging is good for the forest (increases habitat types), and reduces the chances of enormous forest fires that cause massive amounts of damage. Your response to this is to ridicule the very idea of logging, rather than trying to find out more.

Seriously, do like the rest of us do and check your facts before making pronouncements. It means we can discuss the science behind things, rather than try to deal with opinions. 

Loki
The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. - Reagan


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Anyway, i forgot to add before I went to town that I believe your goal of controling the climate might be a tad ambitious for beginners, and perhaps you could start with the bark beetle, chestnut blight, Then maybe the weather, before tackling the bigger ones....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

If you don't cut down trees, they die, and rot, or burn. Rotting or burning releases their carbon back into the atmosphere. Making them into a china cabinet prevents their carbon from being released for a very long time. It's really not the Forest Service's fault that they do things the way they do. They are hamstrung by the hippies. The only way they can manage the forest is to wait for lightning or a cigarette butt. New growth is much more abundant, productive, and healthy, for both the environment and for wildlife. I can take you to some wilderness areas right now, that you would be hard pressed to find a deer track in. Those ancient old trees shade out the browse, and are way past their prime for mast bearing. All the blooms are on the new growth that is competing for the top. Gets frosted out 4 out of 5 years. Where the gypsy moths came through sections of it, the forest is teaming with wildlife of every kind. Of course, the adjacent private land has even more wildlife, because it has been managed properly with selective cut and patches of clear cut, interspersed with grasslands. 

If you want diversity, you can't have your cake and eat it too, to make eggnog one must bust a few eggs. Man is a destructive beast that sows seeds of chaos everywhere. From chaos comes diversity. Only thing that comes close to us is beavers. It is all part of the plan.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hoddedloki said:


> Heritage,
> 
> The reason you have to keep explaining "simple concepts over and over and over again and again and AGAIN," is because you are incorrect in your understanding of those 'simple' concepts, and assume that disagreement with your statements is indicative of of our inability to grasp the facts, rather than a difference in opinion. Your arguments show a basic understanding of the science, but neither an accurate or deep grasp thereof.
> 
> ...


You've also falsely interpreted my opinions to indicate that I'm opposed to logging. This is not so. I am well aware of the benefits controlled burns, selective logging, and silviculture can have on forests. (The very fact that I know the elusive word "silviculture" should tell you something.) I am not an actual treehugger - I do not tie myself to trees to prevent them from being chopped down. This would by hypocritical - I have a very large wood furnace that singularly heats my entire house in the winter. (I also have propane when throwing firewood around becomes annoying.) In fact I prefer burning wood because it is at least carbon neutral. Propane is carbon positive.

Now actually your argument about the rain pattern on the west coast has me doing research. I do not believe myself to have all the answer, I just find egregious ignorance annoying. \/

All right, as far as my interpretation of air over Seattle, I believe I'm still technically correct.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-humidity/

The cool, saturated air comes in over Seattle and rains. Over the mountains, the air rises and warms, which renders rain more difficult to form. If you have 100% humidity at 50F, and that same air parcel rises to 100F, then there's only 50% humidity and no rain. (Crude example, but I think it works.)



barnbilder said:


> If you don't cut down trees, they die, and rot, or burn. Rotting or burning releases their carbon back into the atmosphere. Making them into a china cabinet prevents their carbon from being released for a very long time. It's really not the Forest Service's fault that they do things the way they do. They are hamstrung by the hippies. The only way they can manage the forest is to wait for lightning or a cigarette butt. New growth is much more abundant, productive, and healthy, for both the environment and for wildlife. I can take you to some wilderness areas right now, that you would be hard pressed to find a deer track in. Those ancient old trees shade out the browse, and are way past their prime for mast bearing. All the blooms are on the new growth that is competing for the top. Gets frosted out 4 out of 5 years. Where the gypsy moths came through sections of it, the forest is teaming with wildlife of every kind. Of course, the adjacent private land has even more wildlife, because it has been managed properly with selective cut and patches of clear cut, interspersed with grasslands.
> 
> If you want diversity, you can't have your cake and eat it too, to make eggnog one must bust a few eggs. Man is a destructive beast that sows seeds of chaos everywhere. From chaos comes diversity. Only thing that comes close to us is beavers. It is all part of the plan.


Overall, we're still logging far faster than is sustainable. We have a net loss of forest land every year, by a wide margin. This is global forest. Also, it depends on the tree. The Giant Sequias are still growing and absorbing carbon. Do you want to cut them down? I'll let you get socked with the fines.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> You've also falsely interpreted my opinions to indicate that I'm opposed to logging. This is not so. I am well aware of the benefits controlled burns, selective logging, and silviculture can have on forests. (The very fact that I know the elusive word "silviculture" should tell you something.) I am not an actual treehugger - I do not tie myself to trees to prevent them from being chopped down. This would by hypocritical - I have a very large wood furnace that singularly heats my entire house in the winter. (I also have propane when throwing firewood around becomes annoying.) In fact I prefer burning wood because it is at least carbon neutral. Propane is carbon positive.
> 
> Now actually your argument about the rain pattern on the west coast has me doing research. I do not believe myself to have all the answer, I just find egregious ignorance annoying. \/
> 
> ...


Do you think we are logging faster than the bark beetle? Go up against MAMA nature, you don't get a vote.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Do you think we are logging faster than the bark beetle? Go up against MAMA nature, you don't get a vote.....Joe


Umm nope, in this case it's still mostly our fault. We're also upsetting the Monarch butterfly migration pattern. There are plenty of times when it's not our fault, but with how many humans are on this planet, just about everything can be blamed on us.

http://cals.arizona.edu/extension/fh/bb_faq.html#3



> 3. What caused the current bark beetle outbreak?
> The current level of bark beetle mortality has resulted from a combination of natural factors including, but not limited to: drought, dense forest stands, shallow/rocky soils, and relatively large quantities of bark beetles. Human activities such as fire suppression, past forest management practices, past grazing practices, and ongoing urbanization also have also contributed to current conditions. These factors all influence the amount of water, light, and nutrients available to individual trees in the forest. Trees not receiving enough of these resources become stressed. Bark beetles can detect stressed, susceptible trees and they respond by colonizing it and effectively removing it from the population. This inadvertently makes a larger quantity of resources available for the surviving trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants.


Maybe those droughts were indirectly our fault as well? Hard to tell, my crystal ball isn;t working tonight, but weather patterns do indeed seem to be worsening.


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

joebill said:


> Somebody tells me my blacksmith shop .....Joe[/QUOTE
> 
> Are you really a blacksmith? Like, as in forge & anvil, lots of big hammers, strong arms, gentle heart and hands? Or was that just an example?
> 
> ...


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

AH, another steriotype!

Yes, indeed, bolacksmith, knifemaker, toolmaker, woodworker, welder , fabricator, machinist, also maker of fine muzzleloading cannons.

I am fully aware of your intolerances and fears.

Most folks are ashamed to admit their fears and intolerance and bigotry, so I congratulate you.......There, there, don't be afraid......Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Umm nope, in this case it's still mostly our fault. We're also upsetting the Monarch butterfly migration pattern. There are plenty of times when it's not our fault, but with how many humans are on this planet, just about everything can be blamed on us.
> 
> http://cals.arizona.edu/extension/fh/bb_faq.html#3
> 
> ...


Like most things, each of us gets to choose who or what to blame. If you believe it is mankind, go for it! You have a lot of folks on your side like al gore and the unibomber, and we both know they are a couple of the most rational beings on the planet, so just jump in there and do......WHAT?

Aparently, what you want is to stop pumping oil, because yesterday you seemed to believe that by doing that we could end war.That was quite telling. Eithher you do not believe anything you are saying or you are willing to believe anything.

I have no idea how many times you have to be lied to in order to catch on, or if you ever will.

Start out with all the myths of the past, like global winter and the population bomb and air-borne AIDS virus and the certitude that we would all die from Russia's nukes, then add in all of the ones I forgot but you rememmber, then take a look at the predictions of your "scientists" over the last 20 years, that have never come CLOSE to being true, then look at all the things you believe that you simply just WANT to believe, like weather getting worse;

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/01...tary-emergency-top-10-reasons-gore-was-wrong/

It's not.

Then look at the drouts of the 30's ,50's, back when co2 levels were lower.

All I know for sure is that the record shows clearly that it's more likely, since you do not rule the world, that nature is going to have to adapt to man instead of the reverse.

AND, everything the left tries to guilt us into doing benifits big government, higher taxes, less liberty, fewer property rights. No matter the percieved threat, the "cure" is to turn our lives and fortunes over to government.

You can profess to believe whatever you want. The fairy tale makes a pretty story, but so did Bambi, and nobody thought THAT was real, either.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> Like most things, each of us gets to choose who or what to blame. If you believe it is mankind, go for it! You have a lot of folks on your side like al gore and the unibomber, and we both know they are a couple of the most rational beings on the planet, so just jump in there and do......WHAT?
> 
> Aparently, what you want is to stop pumping oil, because yesterday you seemed to believe that by doing that we could end war.That was quite telling. Eithher you do not believe anything you are saying or you are willing to believe anything.
> 
> ...


Really? A scientific theory is the same as thinking Bambi isn't a fairy tale? I'll have to find a way to disagree with every major government, including UN and USA government, every scientific organization, department, and agency, and every college and university in the developed world. THAT'S what you're disagreeing with. Maybe it makes you feel special to believe something no one else does, fine, but the evidence absolutely doesn't agree with you. And I don't know what tangent you're playing up with the oil and war from the other thread, if we weren't fighting over oil, odds are we'd have less war, too! Maybe you just like the idea of sending spare US soldiers to die.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

If you use toilet paper, thank a logger. And an oil driller, those logs didn't walk to the mill. We can wallow around in self loathing, or we can face up to the fact that change is the only thing constant in nature, of which we are an integral part of.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

If you come up with an alternative energy source, that is as cheap and effective as oil, and that doesn't pollute, you will see wars fought over it, as well.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> If you use toilet paper, thank a logger. And an oil driller, those logs didn't walk to the mill. We can wallow around in self loathing, or we can face up to the fact that change is the only thing constant in nature, of which we are an integral part of.


I'm not advocating living like the Amish. Who's going to do that? Even I'm not going to that. I'll do my part, but I'm not going to kill myself in the process. Realizing that we can, and should, make a difference is a great place to start, though.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> Really? A scientific theory is the same as thinking Bambi isn't a fairy tale? I'll have to find a way to disagree with every major government, including UN and USA government, every scientific organization, department, and agency, and every college and university in the developed world. THAT'S what you're disagreeing with. Maybe it makes you feel special to believe something no one else does, fine, but the evidence absolutely doesn't agree with you. And I don't know what tangent you're playing up with the oil and war from the other thread, if we weren't fighting over oil, odds are we'd have less war, too! Maybe you just like the idea of sending spare US soldiers to die.


 
Think about this, all of the groups, you listed, that we would have to disagree with in order to deny AGW, are either governments or dependent on governments for their existence. The "solutions" proposed, almost without fail, give more power and money to governments. They have a verifiable financial interest in proving AGW is real. Just like the oil companies and scientists that they fund have a verifiable financial interest in proving that AGW is not real. 

That is why my beliefs are in the middle. Climate change is happening. AGW may be occurring, but, the outcomes will not be the "doom and gloom" that the government scientists put forward. We can and will adapt to the minor changes in the climate that are likely to occur, just like our forbearers did at the end of the last ice age, only we won't have to deal with that drastic of a change.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You wrote;
"Really? A scientific theory is the same as thinking Bambi isn't a fairy tale? I'll have to find a way to disagree with every major government, including UN and USA government, every scientific organization, department, and agency, and every college and university in the developed world. THAT'S what you're disagreeing with."

And, although it's not quite as extensive as you claim, every one of those institutions are subject to enormous political and financial pressure to CLAIM to believe it. Disagreeing is as much as anybody's job is worth. You know full well that is not how science works. So does anybody with half a brain. 

If you truly believe everyone agrees with you, then start a poll here. You might tget 60% agreement. Hardly "everyone".

Claiming that it is "established fact" is intellectual dishonesty, and not fit grounds for honest debate.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

In CLOSING, I'll remind you that every one of those institutions agreed with Gore's predictions, and every one of them was wrong. They would have agreed if he said the moon was falling. I repeat, that is not how science works, and everybody knows it....Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

100% of the 97% of the 32% of scientists that believe manmade global warming exists think that it is a serious threat. The same people always cry at every catastrophe and their predictions seldom come true. It is not hard to disagree with the UN, and anyone that would align with them.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You wrote;
> "Really? A scientific theory is the same as thinking Bambi isn't a fairy tale? I'll have to find a way to disagree with every major government, including UN and USA government, every scientific organization, department, and agency, and every college and university in the developed world. THAT'S what you're disagreeing with."
> 
> And, although it's not quite as extensive as you claim, every one of those institutions are subject to enormous political and financial pressure to CLAIM to believe it. Disagreeing is as much as anybody's job is worth. You know full well that is not how science works. So does anybody with half a brain.
> ...


I never said everyone agreed with me. Just the people who understand the issue. Sure, there are a few fringe scientists, and maybe a few fringe universities. I would say that your belief that universities support AGW because it's in their best interest is flat wrong - there are plenty of private colleges that don't rely government funds as much. 



barnbilder said:


> 100% of the 97% of the 32% of scientists that believe manmade global warming exists think that it is a serious threat. The same people always cry at every catastrophe and their predictions seldom come true. It is not hard to disagree with the UN, and anyone that would align with them.


Ah - condemnation by association, another logical fallacy.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm



> Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked â like âwhat would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?â â there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested â the processes of the scientific method â because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that donât quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.
> 
> But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.
> 
> ...


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

Speaking as what you call a 'Fringe Scientist,' I will tell you that less than half of the academic scientific community believes in man made global warming (MMGW). Unfortunately, the reason that we tend to wait until retirement to speak up is that it has been made very clear to us that questioning the high priests of global warming is a fast way to kill your career, even if you cite the actual science behind the whole debate as your proof. Science is never settled, and proper science involves making a hypothesis, and then proceeding the support that hypothesis with data. The MMGW crowd has not managed to adequately support their claims, and so instead try to silence those who point out the scientific flaws in their argument. Here is a list of the many reasons academics and academic institutions support (publicly at least) Global warming, rather than the scientific facts.
1. Grants- if a scientist publicly disagrees with MMGW, then he will get no more grants from the government (which give ~ 90% of grants today). No grants means no job.
2. Public Funding- quite a few colleges and universities receive public funding. if they speak out, they lose state/fed funding. They also have a vested interest in bullying the private colleges into silence/acceptance of MMGW, because it is silencing their critics. Loss of funding means loss of jobs.
3. Ideology (climatology)- In the Climatology field, there are a lot of scientists who are looking to prove themselves right. Those who try to prove it wrong are run out of the field. For those still in the field, they most certainly will not embarrass themselves by proving themselves wrong.
4. Ideology (political)- In academia, very few academics have ever held real jobs outside of academia. They are overwhelmingly big government, and support almost anything that causes more government power. They are government employees in fact if not in name, and MMGW is a convenient way to push big government.

Just a few of the dirty little secrets of the '97% of scientists support MMGW.'

Loki


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Yep, over 90% of the less than half of scientists that believe that there is such a thing as "climate change", instead of just weather, believe that it is manmade. 100% of those believe that it is a serious threat. I wonder how many of those are political scientists?


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

hoddedloki said:


> Speaking as what you call a 'Fringe Scientist,'


 In what field? Perhaps you can share your research that indicates increasing atmospheric CO2 will *not* lead to more heat being retained.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

While it would be convenient for me to claim that I am a climatologist, I must confess that I work in Crop Science, which by an odd coincidence, is affected by CO2 levels and by heat. Hence we tend to study it. For the connection between the temperature and the CO2 level, you might try checking the article in Science titled "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III. Caillon et al., 2003." For some odd reason, most folks wrongly believe the CO2 causes temperature changes, when really, temperature changes cause CO2 changes. 800 years later. Yep, I'm real convinced that CO2 is enough of a problem to let the government have more power.

And yourself Greg? What is your expertise in the fields of Science?

Loki


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

hoddedloki said:


> While it would be convenient for me to claim that I am a climatologist, I must confess that I work in Crop Science, which by an odd coincidence, is affected by CO2 levels and by heat. Hence we tend to study it. For the connection between the temperature and the CO2 level, you might try checking the article in Science titled "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III. Caillon et al., 2003." For some odd reason, most folks wrongly believe the CO2 causes temperature changes, when really, temperature changes cause CO2 changes. 800 years later. Yep, I'm real convinced that CO2 is enough of a problem to let the government have more power.
> 
> And yourself Greg? What is your expertise in the fields of Science?
> 
> Loki





> The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas ageâice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (&#8764;240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III *suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 Â± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.*


We're there other factors that were causing warming by that period of time? I'm not sure, I can't see the whole article yet, but if there were other factors that led to a warmer world, it could have resulted in a positive feedback loop that induced additional CO2 release.


----------



## hoddedloki (Nov 14, 2014)

The quote highlighting the uncertainty of he conclusions is standard scientific boilerplate. No good scientist will state categorically that X causes Y, instead they state that they observed possibly affecting Y, which suggests that X causes Y. Minor semantic detail, but important for understanding science speak.

The idea of a positive feedback loop may have some merit, but it does not explain that when the temperature drops, the CO2 levels still lag. If there was a positive feedback loop, than CO2 should not lag at that point.

This is not to say that I think the whole field of Climate change is Hogwash. Rather I believe that we do not know enough to make 'the world is ending' pronouncements, or base public policy on what amounts to little more than guesses based on incomplete models. 

Loki


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

hoddedloki said:


> Speaking as what you call a 'Fringe Scientist,' I will tell you that less than half of the academic scientific community believes in man made global warming (MMGW). Unfortunately, the reason that we tend to wait until retirement to speak up is that it has been made very clear to us that questioning the high priests of global warming is a fast way to kill your career, even if you cite the actual science behind the whole debate as your proof. Science is never settled, and proper science involves making a hypothesis, and then proceeding the support that hypothesis with data. The MMGW crowd has not managed to adequately support their claims, and so instead try to silence those who point out the scientific flaws in their argument. Here is a list of the many reasons academics and academic institutions support (publicly at least) Global warming, rather than the scientific facts.
> 1. Grants- if a scientist publicly disagrees with MMGW, then he will get no more grants from the government (which give ~ 90% of grants today). No grants means no job.
> 2. Public Funding- quite a few colleges and universities receive public funding. if they speak out, they lose state/fed funding. They also have a vested interest in bullying the private colleges into silence/acceptance of MMGW, because it is silencing their critics. Loss of funding means loss of jobs.
> 3. Ideology (climatology)- In the Climatology field, there are a lot of scientists who are looking to prove themselves right. Those who try to prove it wrong are run out of the field. For those still in the field, they most certainly will not embarrass themselves by proving themselves wrong.
> ...


Thank you, sir.......Joe


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

I spent a bunch of years walking around with a clipboard, a HACH kit, a thermometer and an o2 meter. I know for a fact, through experience, and because of certain laws of physics, that dissolved gas levels go down as water heats up. If you make the oceans warmer, they will give up CO2 to the atmosphere. The mass of the ocean is much more than that of the atmosphere. I think it boils down to a neat parlor trick. We know the oceans have been warming, it's somewhat unclear if we fully know why, but it is a simple quantitative measurement. So it would be very convenient to say "Ah-Ha!, see, we were right, CO2 levels are increasing." Pointing out an effect and claiming that it is a cause does nothing to convince scientists who aren't on the dole.
http://principia-scientific.org/ocean-acidification-claims-are-misleading-and-deliberately-so/


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

The paint color on the outside of my machine shop frightens zeebras away. Have not seen one around the shop in 17 years.....Joe


----------



## greg273 (Aug 5, 2003)

hoddedloki said:


> While it would be convenient for me to claim that I am a climatologist, I must confess that I work in Crop Science, which by an odd coincidence, is affected by CO2 levels and by heat. Hence we tend to study it. For the connection between the temperature and the CO2 level, you might try checking the article in Science titled "Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III. Caillon et al., 2003." For some odd reason, most folks wrongly believe the CO2 causes temperature changes, when really, temperature changes cause CO2 changes. 800 years later. Yep, I'm real convinced that CO2 is enough of a problem to let the government have more power.
> 
> And yourself Greg? What is your expertise in the fields of Science?
> 
> Loki


 Ah yes, the old '800 year lag' thing that so many skeptics hang their argument on. If you believe those science-type guys, history shows the eccentricities of the earths orbit have caused most climate changes, and once the earth begins warming, the oceans begin releasing more CO2. That process still occurs to this day, and its well-accepted that CO2 acts as a positive feedback mechanism for warming... that is, the orbital variations cause more sunlight to hit the earth, temps go up, CO2 goes up, temp goes up more. Now if CO2 goes up because of any other reason, the result will be the same, that is WARMING.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

As to my 'qualifications', my education on this is a couple years of geology, chemistry and meteorology courses I took back in college, plus many years of interest and reading on my own. I've been a weather geek since my teenage years, and the interest has never waned. But no, I am no expert in climatology, just someone who can recognize the hype put out by BOTH sides, and someone who can recognize the hype put out by the 'skeptic' people is usually NOT based on legitimate science. I am no doom and gloom believer, although nor am I one to just ignore the very real effects we have on the environment. 
I'd love to sit and debate this for the hundredth time, but I have some pressing chores in the city to do... someone torched the house I was rehabbing in St. Louis yesterday, and I am in the process of dismantling it brick by brick to sell to the used-brick wholesalers. Not exactly what I had planned for the place, but whats done is done.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

greg273 said:


> Ah yes, the old '800 year lag' thing that so many skeptics hang their argument on. If you believe those science-type guys, history shows the eccentricities of the earths orbit have caused most climate changes, and once the earth begins warming, the oceans begin releasing more CO2. That process still occurs to this day, and its well-accepted that CO2 acts as a positive feedback mechanism for warming... that is, the orbital variations cause more sunlight to hit the earth, temps go up, CO2 goes up, temp goes up more. Now if CO2 goes up because of any other reason, the result will be the same, that is WARMING.
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
> 
> ...


Well that's great that you are re-purposing those bricks, that is something that we all need to do, regardless of our stance on gloom and doom end of the world prophecies, make use of existing resources. Especially when it's something that is going to be thrown away, and instead of making new junk or buying junk from someplace that is using the money to one day kill us. 

I did my part by mowing down a yard for some elderly people that had let it get out of hand, it was two feet tall, lots of weeds, poison ivy and had saplings in places. I burned zero fossil fuels, used a scythe on the whole thing. 

It is my personal belief that using gasoline for yard maintenance is entirely unnecessary, either from a natural resources standpoint or from an economical one. Free workout with every stroke of the blade. If your yard is too big to cut with a scythe, you need a cow. Let's hurry up and mow our five acres of grass with our huge lawn tractor, so we can drive ten miles to the gym. Yards are the vilest form of vanity.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

barnbilder said:


> Well that's great that you are re-purposing those bricks, that is something that we all need to do, regardless of our stance on gloom and doom end of the world prophecies, make use of existing resources. Especially when it's something that is going to be thrown away, and instead of making new junk or buying junk from someplace that is using the money to one day kill us.
> 
> I did my part by mowing down a yard for some elderly people that had let it get out of hand, it was two feet tall, lots of weeds, poison ivy and had saplings in places. I burned zero fossil fuels, used a scythe on the whole thing.
> 
> It is my personal belief that using gasoline for yard maintenance is entirely unnecessary, either from a natural resources standpoint or from an economical one. Free workout with every stroke of the blade. If your yard is too big to cut with a scythe, you need a cow. Let's hurry up and mow our five acres of grass with our huge lawn tractor, so we can drive ten miles to the gym. Yards are the vilest form of vanity.


yay, we agree on something!


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

You'll be delighted to know that I do not use gasoline in yard maint. I pitch the tumbleweeds in a pile with a manuer fork, crush them with the diesel track loader, then light them with bar-b-q-starter and a paper match....  ...Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)




----------

