# Anybody think that Climate Change is NOT Man Made?



## alb5049

For any Climate Change doubters you should have a look at the latest US National Climate Assessment report for 2014. 


99% of world scientists now agree that climate change is man made. Do the other 1% still belong to the Flat Earth Society as well?

Homesteaders everywhere are adopting alternative and renewable energy very quickly, because homesteaders already KNOW that the climate is changing, it is affecting farms, crops and homesteads and we need to fix it - fast.

Cheers
Allan Barker


----------



## Twobottom

99% of scientists do not ''agree that climate change is man made''. That statement is false. Before posting a report you should make an effort to actually understand the report and its parameters and limitations.

I do not know if climate change is man made, a naturally occurring event, or a combination of both...and neither do the scientists involved in the study.


----------



## Jim-mi

This thread belongs in Politics


----------



## Bellyman

I vote for "both". Do I think man can have an effect on our climate, yes. Do I believe we can control it, no. There are too many factors (such as sun cycles, volcano eruptions, El Nino, etc.) that we have zero control over.

As a whole, I do believe the earth's population dumps way more crud into the air and water than should happen and poisons large tracts of land with chemicals strip-mining, clear-cutting, even radioactivity. 

Tree hugger, no. But I do care about taking care of the world around me.


----------



## 1shotwade

Climate change is NOT CAUSED by man!It is a natural event but it's effects are enhanced by man.The earth has a natural "figure 8" path in relationship to the sun and we are in that part of the track that puts earth closer to the sun and naturally warming as it does every 8,000 years.
Mans presence on earth has enhanced this but not by how we are being told.The earth was in perfect balance until we started changing things.The single biggest thing that contributes to this extra warming is cutting off the rain forests.That is what keeps the output of CO2 by the oceans in check. The rest of the equation is the air pollution from manufacturing that settles on the ice fields and change the color just enough to absorb heat from the sun and increase the melting. This melting adds cold fresh water to the oceans and is forced to the bottom which effects the gulf stream by cooling and weakening it.
Nobody wants to tell you this because there not a lot we can do about it in our everyday lives.It takes a total reversal by the world leaders to fix it,not poor people changing when they gas up or mow their lawn.

Wade


----------



## DEKE01

No, I don't think 99% agree and I don't think Global cooling / warming / changing / disruption is man made any more than I think man caused all the other climate changes over the last few million years. 

I am installing PV electric in the house I'm building. I'm not doing it to save the planet, I'm doing it as part of my family's personal sustainability plan. Florida has some of the most expensive electric in the nation and I believe it will get more expensive over the next couple of decades.


----------



## doingitmyself

Godzira is angry his fishing grounds off the coast of fukusemia are being polluted with radioactive waste .


----------



## notwyse

How can I imagine it is totally man made when i hike these hills and see the remains of ancient forests and rivers... All gone now.


----------



## SolarGary

Hi,
Wikipedia has a page that has been keeping track of surveys of scientists that ask about man caused climate change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

It covers 1990 to 2013. 
The percentage of scientists working in climate area that believe that man is the main factor in climate change has been increasing, and it does now appear to be in the high 90%'s.

Gary


----------



## Darren

alb5049 said:


> For any Climate Change doubters you should have a look at the latest US National Climate Assessment report for 2014.
> 
> You can find it here *"Overview | National Climate Assessment"[*/URL].
> 
> 99% of world scientists now agree that climate change is man made. Do the other 1% still belong to the Flat Earth Society as well?
> 
> Homesteaders everywhere are adopting alternative and renewable energy very quickly, because homesteaders already KNOW that the climate is changing, it is affecting farms, crops and homesteads and we need to fix it - fast.
> 
> Cheers
> Allan Barker




Others have pointed out that the 99% number is bogus. It's the equivalent of a celebrity endorsement. When you pay people for a result, that doesn't necessarily make the product, global warming in this case, a good buy. Years ago Mohammed Ali did advertisements for auto parts. At that time I recognized the endorsement as bogus simply because the man had no experience with auto repair. Same goes with the huge number of claimed scientists that believe in global warming.

Now we're being asked to believe that 99% of the worlds scientists believe in global warming when probably 99.99% have no expertise in climatology. Just because someone is an expert in some "science" does not make their opinion worth anything in a field for which they did not study.

Whatever happened to the Australian idiot scientist, explorer, and writer that set out to retrace Mawson's trip and ended up putting himself and his party in a situation that required an international rescue effort? Last I heard, there was talk of sticking him with the rescue bill. The real Australian scientists had their REAL research impacted because the fool tied up their supply ship in the rescue. It was reported they were not happy with the idiot.

BTW, what are your thoughts on the fact that the computer models that predicted global warming were wrong? I wouldn't embrace that US study if I were you. You'll end up covered with a wet, brown, sticky substance.

Many of us here could tell by the smell what it was. It wasn't necessary to stick our nose in it.

Here's a hint. When you see a product for sale that the marketers claim is new and improved, remember the fool me once mantra. It's one thing when it's only your money that gets wasted. It's something else when you want to waste my money. Got that?


----------



## DEKE01

SolarGary said:


> Hi,
> Wikipedia has a page that has been keeping track of surveys of scientists that ask about man caused climate change.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
> 
> It covers 1990 to 2013.
> The percentage of scientists working in climate area that believe that man is the main factor in climate change has been increasing, and it does now appear to be in the high 90%'s.
> 
> Gary


Wiki has been pro anthropogenic climate change for a long time. Even still, did you read the article you published? Political appointees on AGW think there is AGW. Gee...ya think? Employees of prisons and schools generally think prisons and schools do a good job. To quote Cuba Gooding Jr, "SHOW ME THE MONEY!" Also note that your article says that members of that org who are "skeptical" come under scrutiny. 

From the AGW crowd...there's no pressure, just tell us what you think, but if you don't think the politically correct, authorized, Liberal, and approved way, there will be consequences.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

There is a tremendous amount of fiddling with figures, to the point that very little if anything in the debate is to be trusted. Example: in just discussing carbon loads, I showed how 4,000,000 pounds of carbon was reported by one greenie as 42,000,000,000 pounds of pollution - all the result of a week long BART labor strike. Part of it was due to the use of "tons" instead of "pounds" and part of it is because when gasoline is combusted, the 6 pounds of it (5 lbs of carbon) create 19 pounds of CO2. The EPA then uses the weight of the CO2 as the go-to figure, even though about 3/4 of the weight is oxygen.

Whether you think climate change/ global warming /odd weather is created by nature, man, or a combination, the "solutions" proposed and regulations imposed are about the most foolish I can think of.

Forcing onerous regulations on industry in the United States so that it moves production to China, where pollution has grown to the levels of killer smog, isn't reducing GLOBAL warming, but in fact is worsening it, since in addition to less efficient combustion being more acceptable in China, it also adds all the energy required to transport goods half a world away.

The solution to limiting the amount of pee in a swimming pool is not making one end of the pool a no-pee zone and telling all the kids to swim at the other end of the pool. Greenies seem not to have grasped that concept.

Thread showing how I dissected the lie:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/green-living/2106094-mass-transit-work-strike-21-million.html


----------



## farminghandyman

I will believe the CO founder of the weather channel before I will believe this administration and the clowns they have on there pay roll,



> http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/05...tructive-episode-of-bad-science-gone-berserk/
> *â600 page litany of doomâ: Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A âtotal distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserkâ *
> 
> ​ *Coleman: 'When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the âradiative forcingâ theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.'*​​ *'The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in âthe greenhouse effectâ causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.'*​​ ​


​​ ​​ much more at the link videos and graphs,​​ ​​ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~​​ ​​


> Actually from "War Propaganda", in volume 1, chapter 6 of _Mein Kampf_ (1925), by Adolf Hitler
> 
> 
> *If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.*
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Attributed to Goebbels in _Publications Relating to Various Aspects of Communism_ (1946
> 
> If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.


----------



## ET1 SS

Earth's climate changes every year.

Earth's climate was changing before man existed.

Earth's climate will continue to change long after man is gone.


----------



## Gray Wolf

No. Yes. Maybe. 

Reword the question?


----------



## fishhead

SolarGary said:


> Hi,
> Wikipedia has a page that has been keeping track of surveys of scientists that ask about man caused climate change.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change
> 
> It covers 1990 to 2013.
> The percentage of scientists working in climate area that believe that man is the main factor in climate change has been increasing, and it does now appear to be in the high 90%'s.
> 
> Gary


Even if 99.99% of climate scientists believed that we are making climate change worse that won't be enough for the people that have chosen to believe the oil industry talking points. It's like having 999 mechanics tell you that your radiator hose is almost ready to break and choosing to believe the 1 mechanic who tells you it's okay to drive across the desert without changing the hose before you start the drive.

I don't bother trying to convince anyone who deny that we are causing it because it isn't worth the effort. It wasn't that long ago that those same people were claiming the climate isn't changing.


----------



## MichaelZ

Do they discuss the polar vortex effect in the report? That has had great implications for our area this last year.


----------



## activeskeptic

Flat Earth Society


----------



## MichaelZ

activeskeptic said:


> Flat Earth Society



The Polar Vortex Effect is theorized to be caused by a loss of the ice cap leading to a minimization of the jet stream that keeps the arctic weather in the arctic where it belongs. 

As to weather the climate change (which is near undeniable) being completely caused by human activity, I don't think anyone can give an answer that is correct with 100% probability simply because weather is still too complex for us to fully understand and predict. Most likely, human activity might be enhancing or accelerating a natural weather cycle.


----------



## watcher

When they can show me the evidence that man caused the global warming that ended the last ice age I'll agree that this warming cycle is man caused.


----------



## wy_white_wolf

I believe most reports/studies overstate mans influence on the climate and the effect of any climate change. 

I have yet to see any study/climate model take into consideration the decreasing magnetic field of the earth or the increase in ocean current flow through the bearing straight due to the ocean floor dropping.

WWW


----------



## simi-steading

Here's a cool graphic... Notice now is not the warmest the earth has been... and this goes back LONG before we figured out what coal was..


----------



## simi-steading

Another cool graph. This one showing ice amounts.. Notice now is getting close to the lower end of the normal cycles.... I'ce has come and gone... and before long, we're going to blame ourselves for creating the next ice age... Man is so full of himself..


----------



## ET1 SS

watcher said:


> When they can show me the evidence that man caused the global warming that ended the last ice age I'll agree that this warming cycle is man caused.


Maybe the previous intelligent species caused their Ice Age to end. At this point it is hard to do more than to speculate.

As the current intelligent species, one of our jobs now has been to re-populate the earth.

We expect the 'End Times' will be marked by wars and famines, but prophecies never tell us exactly what it is that causes the famines. It could be the climate changing.


----------



## Darren




----------



## Darren

It's a shame truth in advertising doesn't apply to propaganda. If it did, they'd need to print a disclaimer on the front of that report. If Billy Mays was still alive, they'd hire him for the infomercial on global warming, global climate change, Climate disruption or whatever the label de jour is.

There's a lesson here. When people have decided you're selling BS, screaming louder isn't more convincing. It's ANNOYING! :nono:


----------



## SolarGary

Hi,
Here is John Oliver's take on the 97%...

http://theenergycollective.com/jose...tm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+(all+posts)

Gary


----------



## DEKE01

SolarGary said:


> Hi,
> Here is John Oliver's take on the 97%...
> 
> http://theenergycollective.com/jose...tm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+(all+posts)
> 
> Gary


That was amusing, but I would love to see a real scientific debate on AGW. I'm a skeptic. I don't get why the AGW crowd prefers to shame me, bully me, or silence me, instead of presenting scientific evidence to show why the skeptic's points are wrong. And while they are at it, can they prove why AGW is a net bad and that anything Obama might do to further stifle the economy will actually do anything positive to reduce AGW (if it exists). 

And did you hear this week that eggs, fat, and red meat, are good for you. The scientific community had a consensus for decades that cholesterol from those foods was the killer and that we should eat more carbs. Now they say carbs make you fat and have done more to hurt general health than transfats. It seems, consensus is not the same thing as science. Having every doctor repeat the lie didn't make it true any more than the gov't paying lots of "scientists" to have a gov't preferred position make AGW true.


----------



## RiverPines

Climate change is natural and needed or we would still be in the last ice age. The polar caps have melted before when the planet hit its warm peak before the next cold period. Are we speeding it up, I dont know, maybe. 
Are we killing ourselves with our pollution and poisons in the environment, definitely.


----------



## Alaska

Seems to me when I was back in school in the 70' the same fools were telling me if we didnt quit what we are doing we would be in another ice age by the turn of the century. 
We are an arrogant species. we will kill ourselves off in hand to hand combat before will have any real effect on the planet.
Super volcanoes will change the climate when it is time. Look it up. There is no place to hide. Enjoy the fireworks.


----------



## po boy

99% scientist agree is a joke. It's agree or else and all other opinions are silenced. 

It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch.
There is something rotten in the state of climate science.


----------



## fishhead

Darren said:


> It's a shame truth in advertising doesn't apply to propaganda. If it did, they'd need to print a disclaimer on the front of that report. If Billy Mays was still alive, they'd hire him for the infomercial on global warming, global climate change, Climate disruption or whatever the label de jour is.
> 
> There's a lesson here. When people have decided you're selling BS, screaming louder isn't more convincing. It's ANNOYING! :nono:


It's too bad the oil industry isn't required to put their name on the controversy they artificially created. The funding for the groups that continue to mislead the public has been traced back to the oil industry but that news rarely makes it into the front page so people continue to parrot the phony talking points.


----------



## jwal10

His first post and homepage....James


http://www.alphatech5.com/#sthash.xEiFnd0r.dpbs

Click on....about me.

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/members/alb5049/


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ... I don't get why the AGW crowd prefers to shame me, bully me, or silence me, instead of presenting scientific evidence to show why the skeptic's points are wrong. ....




http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/


----------



## DEKE01

roberte - nice try, but I'm not one to be convinced by circular logic or indoctrination. A scan thru a few of your links shows that it is nothing but a repetition of all the same stuff over and over again using the same questionable sources and methods. Repeating questionable data doesn't make the data true. Citing the same IPCC reports on lots of different websites does not make AGW true anymore than the fact that most of the posts in this thread are anti-AGW make it false. 

Your myths site has many logic flaws and the three pages I read all dodge and misrepresent the points of the anti-AGW's. 

And you are directing your links to the wrong person. I make no claim to climate science expertise. There are climate scientists out there who question AGW. Why aren't those folks challenged head on in a public debate when instead they are defunded, fired, and shamed? Why aren't the failed predictions of the models addressed instead of just giving us a bunch of obfuscation about how great they are? The models predicted more and stronger storms, why does the AGW crowd keep repeating a lie when it is so obviously not true?


----------



## where I want to

The real question is whether the climate changes if there were no humans at all and by how much. Because it certainly does, and the how much is unknown.
Then, even if it is determined that humans are responsible for it, will it turn out to be a bad change or is it possible it is another condition to be adapted to successfully.
And if it is determined that it is human caused and a bad thing, what can be done of use in the light of the reality of differing goals among various people.
The bottom line is that the only real answer is population control. And that is the elephant in the room that no person who demands attention to the issue wants to notice because the details always come out ugly.


----------



## fishhead

Who released all the prehistoric carbon dioxide into our atmosphere?

It is true that our climate is changing and that is a natural process. What isn't a natural process is the rate it is currently changing and that is directly attributable to humans releasing CO2. We are already far above the highest CO2 level in the past million or so years and there is no end in sight. We should have stopped it at 350 ppm but it looks like we are headed to 500 ppm or worse.

I'm glad that I won't be here to see the worst of it as civilizations collapse and we descend into anarchy because of food and water shortages. I just wish all the GOP would still be here to endure it.


----------



## DEKE01

fishhead said:


> Who released all the prehistoric carbon dioxide into our atmosphere?
> 
> It is true that our climate is changing and that is a natural process. What isn't a natural process is the rate it is currently changing and that is directly attributable to humans releasing CO2. We are already far above the highest CO2 level in the past million or so years and there is no end in sight. We should have stopped it at 350 ppm but it looks like we are headed to 500 ppm or worse.
> 
> *I'm glad that I won't be here to see the worst of it as civilizations collapse and we descend into anarchy because of food and water shortages. * I just wish all the GOP would still be here to endure it.


LOL - talk about alarmist. 

Even if you are correct that AGW is true, there will be winners and losers. If future Canada has the same weather as present Kansas, the grain belt grows and we feed even more folks.


----------



## Forcast

1shotwade said:


> Climate change is NOT CAUSED by man!It is a natural event but it's effects are enhanced by man.The earth has a natural "figure 8" path in relationship to the sun and we are in that part of the track that puts earth closer to the sun and naturally warming as it does every 8,000 years.
> Mans presence on earth has enhanced this but not by how we are being told.The earth was in perfect balance until we started changing things.The single biggest thing that contributes to this extra warming is cutting off the rain forests.That is what keeps the output of CO2 by the oceans in check. The rest of the equation is the air pollution from manufacturing that settles on the ice fields and change the color just enough to absorb heat from the sun and increase the melting. This melting adds cold fresh water to the oceans and is forced to the bottom which effects the gulf stream by cooling and weakening it.
> Nobody wants to tell you this because there not a lot we can do about it in our everyday lives.It takes a total reversal by the world leaders to fix it,not poor people changing when they gas up or mow their lawn.
> 
> Wade



Got to go with Wade. I think it has happened before and will happen again.

As far as going solar, wind, off grid it really costs a lot more than most people have available to spend. When I got prices I was floored with the cost of saving money and the planet costing so much.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> .....
> Your myths site has many logic flaws and the three pages I read all dodge and misrepresent the points of the anti-AGW's.


Assuming you are discussing Skeptical Science's Skeptic Arguments (http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage), we can start there; what three pages? How do they "dodge" the point? And explain how the skeptic position is "misrepresent(ed).



DEKE01 said:


> There are climate scientists out there who question AGW. Why aren't those folks challenged head on in a public debate when instead they are defunded, fired, and shamed?


Examples?



DEKE01 said:


> Why aren't the failed predictions of the models addressed instead of just giving us a bunch of obfuscation about how great they are?


If you can point us to a specific example, then we can discuss that.

Or possibly use "How Accurate Are Existing Computer Climate Modeling Techniques?" from the Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html)
Or Chapter 9 from IPCC's 5th Assessment, 9. Evaluation of Climate Models (http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf)


Actually, if any of those points are too specific or too science-based for you to discuss, how about just pointing us to the resources you have used to form your opinion Who is informing you?

The simple point is that the basic mechanisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change have been known since the Victorian era, the research since then has continued to point to the same causes.

A typical skeptic position is to take one small issue - one that is often out of date, misquoted, pulled out of context, or misunderstood - and attempt to claim it puts the whole body of research into the trashbin.


----------



## roberte

po boy said:


> 99% scientist agree is a joke.


Yup, the OP was off by 2% ( or 1%).

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources." http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus


W. R. L. Anderegg, âExpert Credibility in Climate Change,â Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, âBeyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,â Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Expert credibility in climate change

" Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i)* 97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC *outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the *relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers*." http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 (my bolding)





po boy said:


> It's agree or else and all other opinions are silenced


Might want to read up on that 'controversy'; maybe by starting with why the paper was rejected, not the spin put out by the GWPF or opinion pieces written to the skeptic community.


----------



## roberte

fishhead said:


> Who released all the prehistoric carbon dioxide into our atmosphere?


Probably a rhetorical question, but well worth pointing out that carbon got stored during the Carboniferous Period.



fishhead said:


> It is true that our climate is changing and that is a natural process. What isn't a natural process is the rate it is currently changing and that is directly attributable to humans releasing CO2. We are already far above the highest CO2 level in the past million or so years and there is no end in sight. We should have stopped it at 350 ppm but it looks like we are headed to 500 ppm or worse.


A voice of reason! Well done.




fishhead said:


> I'm glad that I won't be here to see the worst of it as civilizations collapse and we descend into anarchy because of food and water shortages. I just wish all the GOP would still be here to endure it.


It amazes (and distresses) me that the politicians (and 43% (http://www.gallup.com/poll/167972/steady-blame-humans-global-warming.aspx) of US citizens won't read the data and consider what is in store for their children and grandchildren - much less what is already happening and how it is starting to effect societies worldwide.


----------



## Raeven

I'll add my voice to those who understand that climate change is happening and is a result of human activity. Below is the substantive part of a post I made on another forum. I'll be interested to see how it is received here v. there:

For me and a lot of folks I know, the science is long settled on both issues -- that climate change is happening at an ever-increasing pace, and that it is human engineered. It seems to me that dealing with the realities of this, meaning how it will impact us with respect to survival, food production issues and the like, is one of the most important things for serious discussion in any homesteading forum. Weather, at least the majority of the time, needs to cooperate to grow food. The seas must be alive and rich with a host of essential plankton-type species for there to be terrestrial life. 

I am always open to reviewing additional *factual* information that adds knowledge to my conclusions, but so often, it's just people saying how they *feel*. Means nothing. 

Here is some of the factual information I've found extremely persuasive:
_
1. Itâs a myth and a meme that there is serious debate among scientists that climate change is human-caused. In fact, 96-98% of scientists completely agree on this matter. So why are we paying *any* attention to the 2-4% who disagree?

2. Carbon molecules in the atmosphere can be âfingerprinted.â One out of four is *directly related *to human activity. These do not count the ones that are released in a natural way *because* of human activity.

3. 20% of all carbon emissions come from deforestation. Deforestation accounts for as much carbon in the atmosphere as has been released from all vehicle emissions in the whole world for as long as there have been vehicles. Isnât that a staggering statistic?

4. According to *conservative* estimates, at the current rate of warming, Fargo, North Dakota will be the new Phoenix, Arizona by the turn of the century. So what will Phoenix, Arizona be like by then?

5. Ocean acidification is happening at such an alarming rate due to its absorption of carbon that current trajectories indicate all plankton will be unable to survive past *2048*. Since 80% of the oxygen on our planet is produced by plankton, itâs not too hard to do the rest of the math. We have already begun to see significant effects of ocean acidification on the food chain. This is accelerating due to feedback loops created by our having approached the oceansâ capacity to absorb any more carbon. Whatever can no longer be absorbed by the oceans will go straight into the atmosphere -- accelerating global warming even further.

6. In the overall trend tracked for the past 30 years, 40% of sea ice in the Arctic has disappeared, replaced by âdarkâ ocean spots and lakes in glaciers. These absorb more warmth than the bright Arctic ice cap. Again, in just the past 30 years, these dark places have caused more global warming than all of the carbon dioxide emissions of every vehicle on the planet. Warming has increased because of melt. âDarkâ ocean spots and lakes cause even more warming, which leads to more lakes, which leads to more warming. This is especially disturbing because in projections made about the rate of warming decades ago with regard to this very phenomenon â which projections we have exceeded in virtually every instance â these dangerous feedback loops were not taken into account. In other words, itâs happening a lot faster than we thought it would.

7. The ice in Greenland is melting at a pace five times faster than it was just 20 years ago. Five times.

8. Methane release both from the Arctic Siberian Ice Shelf as well as from fracking. (I saved the best for last.) A recent study by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences based on an analysis of a number of hydraulic fracturing sites in southwestern Pennsylvania has found that methane was being released into the atmosphere at *100 to 1,000* times the rate that the Environmental Protection Agency estimated. 

Further, giant fountains/torches/plumes of methane entering the atmosphere up to 1 km across have been seen and extensively studied on the East Siberian Shelf. This methane eruption data is so consistent and aerially extensive that when combined with methane gas warming potentials, Permian extinction event temperatures and methane lifetime data, it paints a frightening picture of the beginning of the now uncontrollable global warming induced destabilization of the subsea Arctic methane hydrates on the shelf and slope which started in late 2010. This process of methane release will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and *could likely lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century*.

Methane's lifetime in the atmosphere is much shorter than carbon dioxide (CO2), but CH4 is more efficient at trapping radiation than CO2. Pound for pound, the comparative impact of CH4 on climate change is over *20 times* greater than CO2 over a 100-year period._

All of the above... it sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, doesn't it? But the facts are there, they are real and are easily verified for any who care to look, which I encourage all to do -- and they are scary. You can call me alarmist, or you can do the work yourself and find that the facts are as stated.

Please do not tell me about how the weather is at your place and how it "proves" global warming isn't happening. What you're using as examples is weather forecasting, which by comparison is highly specific and detailed, and believe it or not has nothing to do with global warming forecasting. Climate model predictions are sum averages that are global and are nothing more than trends on a planetary scale. It does not predict what the temperature will be in Portland, OR in 20 years on such and such day, but what will happen as a whole to sum averages. Those folks have been pretty accurate historically. What's worse, though, is that the ongoing studies with the Siberian ice melt, the methane hydrates and other reinforcing feedbacks, they as of yet have not factored any of these feedback loops into their modeling because of the ongoing research. Until now, they couldn't factor in the unintended consequences because we didn't know what they were. But now we do, and none of it bodes well.

Similarly, I'd really prefer to not hear about the predictable and tedious "natural cycles" argument, and here is why: Every single natural cycle for which we can account -- Earth's orbit around the Sun, solar activity, volcanic activity -- that in the past has sent us into an extinction level event (ELE) indicates we should be in a cooling period, not a warming one. I often hear people say how 40 years ago, scientists were predicting we were heading into an ice age, so how can they be right about global warming? According to all the natural cycle data, we *should* be heading into an ice age. But we're not. And the reason is because of human-caused fossil fuel emissions. Not only have we thrown enough carbon/methane into the atmosphere to stop an ice age, we've thrown enough up there to *reverse* one.

The science on all this is not really that hard. We know that if so many parts per million of CO2 and/or CH4 enter the atmosphere, we will see X amount of corresponding increase in global temperature. CO2 increases or decreases and global temperatures track together almost in lockstep as far back as we care to measure. So these are easy extrapolations to make based on the measurable amounts of CO2/CH4 in our atmosphere today. Scientists have long said we are in a serious danger zone to exceed 380 ppm of CO2. In April, we now measure 402 ppm -- the highest amount in more than 800,000 years, the highest ever in human history.

Accepting what is true is the first step to making any change.

FWIW.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

"_This process of methane release will accelerate exponentially, release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere and *could likely lead to the demise of all life on earth before the middle of this century*."

_If you really believe that, *it kinda makes everything else irrelevant, doesn't it?* You don't stop a speeding train with a Yugo.

Up until about five years ago, people were poo-pooing me when I said that a lot of the arctic issues are from the routes flown by planes leaving trails of dark unburned carbon on top of the ice, making it absorb more solar energy. Everyone on the CC side said "No, it is all CO2 that is causing this." Then they changed their story...

Of course, once there is a bandwagon, every fruitcake wants to jump on for the free ride. I found out that according to some (whose motives I can surmise) the average dog has a greater negative carbon footprint than an SUV, and a cat has the carbon damaging potential of a VW Golf. (Oggie would be proud)

On a geological time line, our relatively high oxygen atmosphere is actually a pollution created by the methane eating bacteria long ago. The natural state of planetary atmospheres is a methane one. Search to see the atmospheres of other planets in the solar system and what little we know about exo-planets.

Would all life extinguish if methane levels rise? Of course not. Life around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean would be unaffected. Organisms that use methane would be quite happy.

_1. It&#8217;s a myth and a meme that there is serious debate among scientists that climate change is human-caused. In fact, 96-98% of scientists completely agree on this matter. So why are we paying *any* attention to the 2-4% who disagree?

_Because what might seem good science at the time might be totally blowing smokehttp://www.snotr.com/video/6206/How_to_save_someone_from_drowning

_3. 20% of all carbon emissions come from deforestation. Deforestation accounts for as much carbon in the atmosphere as has been released from all vehicle emissions in the whole world for as long as there have been vehicles. Isn&#8217;t that a staggering statistic?

_Staggeringly munged from the original idea, yeah. The idea of the carbon bank of the trees and the carbon bank of the tuff going back into the atmosphere is correct. That is different. Do some research and you will find a fellow who did some experiments to seed the ocean with iron to increase the plankton levels and use them as a new carbon bank. Even though it was showing amazing results, environmentalists STOPPED HIM. 

There ARE ways of reversing GW and turning the Earth into an ice ball within a few years. Doing so would cost less than our military budget, but would really upset a lot of people because of side effects. What is being done now is just ridiculous running around in circles.


----------



## Raeven

Harry Chickpea said:


> If you really believe that, *it kinda makes everything else irrelevant, doesn't it?* You don't stop a speeding train with a Yugo.


 
I don't want to believe that, but I can see it is distinctly within the realm of possibility. And even if true, I don't think it is a basis to abdicate my responsibility to do what I can to change it. It may indeed already be too late. Do you think that's a reason to do nothing? I don't.




Harry Chickpea said:


> On a geological time line, our relatively high oxygen atmosphere is actually a pollution created by the methane eating bacteria long ago. The natural state of planetary atmospheres is a methane one. Search to see the atmospheres of other planets in the solar system and what little we know about exo-planets.


 

Well aware of your points without need to research further. However, it means nothing to human life on Earth, does it? Climate change on our own planet is what is at issue here.




Harry Chickpea said:


> Would all life extinguish if methane levels rise? Of course not. Life around hydrothermal vents in the deep ocean would be unaffected. Organisms that use methane would be quite happy.




A fair point. Iâll modify what I said to *most* life on earth, including virtually all mammalian life. Iâm happy for the life that thrives around hydrothermal vents, but I fail to see how that is terribly useful to the human species.

 


Harry Chickpea said:


> http://www.snotr.com/video/6206/How_to_save_someone_from_drowning


 

A Stephen Frye video? Heâs a lovely comedian, but I don't find him much relevant to the discussion.




Harry Chickpea said:


> Even though it was showing amazing results, environmentalists STOPPED HIM.


 Maybe âcoz this? http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-with-volcanic-iron-did-little-to-lower-co2/




Harry Chickpea said:


> There ARE ways of reversing GW and turning the Earth into an ice ball within a few years. Doing so would cost less than our military budget, but would really upset a lot of people because of side effects. What is being done now is just ridiculous running around in circles.


 Orâ¦ we could just shift our focus from non-renewable fossil fuels to already-known, renewable wind and solar. I know which choice makes more sense to me.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

"And even if true, I don't think it is a basis to abdicate my responsibility to do what I can to change it. It may indeed already be too late. Do you think that's a reason to do nothing? I don't."

You and I , as individuals, can't do squat to change anything on a meaningful basis. The is the cold hard truth. If it IS too late, as your alarmist statement related, nothing is going to work. Choose and use words carefully. "Likely" means that there is more than a 50% chance of something happening. The real chance of a methane burp on the scale you propose happening within fifty years is almost nil. I suspect that you know that as well but got lead by your rhetoric instead of your logic. 

I didn't use the link because of Fry so much as the medical device being exposed. That was a quintessential example of science blowing smoke up the butts of people in trouble. I used that link because it put such "science" in proper context.

Gotta love SciAm. I have a subscription to it. I get one about once every three years now 'cause they tick me off so much and are a pale shadow of the mag I knew and loved in the 1970s up through about 1998. One year in three is about all I can take. Nat Geo is even worse. Discover has taken up some of the slack but is nowhere near what the old SciAm was.

Anyway, the article mentions that the lack of nitrates was a determining factor in slowing the plankton growth when there was sufficient iron. Seems to me...
that an EXCESS of nitrates in the oceans has been bemoaned as having caused dead zones, so the runoff of nitrates has been reduced because of "environmental" concerns.

Of course no one dares mention that in wetland conservation, one of the PRIMARY results is eutrophic decay, creating an excess of methane.

It seems certain that Larry, Curly, and Moe are firmly in charge.


----------



## Raeven

Harry, you've got a lot of opinions, and of course you are entitled to them. You're also adept at implying things are stupid without actually offering anything substantive to refute what has been offered by me and others. Merely ridiculing adds nothing to the discussion.

As for the methane "burp," it's not *going* to happen. It's happening now, only as a seep, not a burp. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-environmental-group-methane-seeps-arctic.html#nRlv 

It's not even attributable to human activity. But it's going to play a rather enormous role in what's coming, aggravated by global warming -- over which I believe we do have some measure of control.

An overabundance of nitrates in one part of an ocean does not necessarily translate into an overabundance of nitrates in another part of the ocean. Surely you grasp that an excess can be had in one spot, while a shortage (if one advocates your approach, which I do not) might be suffered in another? One thing does not preclude the other.

I seriously doubt that wetland conservation methane even begins to approach that which is being released as a result of permafrost melt. Do you think it does? Bit of a false dichotomy there, I think.

There are things we can't stop, and there are things we can. I advocate only to work on what we can. And I'll do it without making fun of you, because that is the refuge of one who has no valid argument to offer.


----------



## Lupine

I think we need to stop arguing about who is causing it, and agree that it's happening. 

How we allow that knowledge to affect our behavior is up to the individual. Most of us on here know there's more benefit to self-reliant, low-impact living than simply protecting the environment. Much of what we do to make ourselves and our families resilient against climate change have the secondary benefit of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. 

Keep calm, and carry on homesteading.


----------



## roberte

Darren said:


>


----------



## Harry Chickpea

Raeven said:


> Harry, you've got a lot of opinions, and of course you are entitled to them. You're also adept at implying things are stupid without actually offering anything substantive to refute what has been offered by me and others. Merely ridiculing adds nothing to the discussion.
> 
> You misinterpret. I point out things that I think are obviously stupid, and try to force the debate to address those things. As an example: No one, as of yet, has responded to the greater issue of moving manufacturing to China, where pollution controls are lax, and then claiming high ground because pollution levels in the post-industrial U.S. are somehow improving. If you want to call it a global crisis, then _dadgummmit_ TREAT it as such. Tell corporations doing business in China that "No, you can't avoid pollution controls by going there. If you do, we won't allow your products into the U.S. or E.U." It can be that simple. It isn't done because it is about power, politics and money.  Once you perceive just how entrenched those are, the "science," the media coverage, and the proposed restrictions start to make a lot more sense.
> 
> As for the methane "burp," it's not *going* to happen. It's happening now, only as a seep, not a burp. http://phys.org/news/2012-05-environmental-group-methane-seeps-arctic.html#nRlv
> 
> I used the term "burp" because that is the term used by the extremist enviro-nuts. I am sick and tired of the BS scare tactics scare words, and overblown graphics and you can bet your sweet bippy I will use those same words when responding, even after those extremists have been forced to back down - so that the rhetoric level will get down to reasoned debate instead of emotional whinging.
> 
> It's not even attributable to human activity. But it's going to play a rather enormous role in what's coming, aggravated by global warming -- over which I believe we do have some measure of control.
> 
> Siberia may become valuable crop land. The permafrost swamps thawing may be a place of refuge for many birds and animals. Glass half-full, glass half-empty.
> 
> An overabundance of nitrates in one part of an ocean does not necessarily translate into an overabundance of nitrates in another part of the ocean. Surely you grasp that an excess can be had in one spot, while a shortage (if one advocates your approach, which I do not) might be suffered in another? One thing does not preclude the other.
> 
> Since you don't advocate that approach anyway, further discussion on it is moot. I showed just one way of how a simple proven technique could reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere. You don't like it, you cite a location that is nitrate poor as a reason why it won't work, and yet continue to bemoan that things are getting too hot. Why am I reminded of battered housewives who refuse to leave their husbands?
> 
> I seriously doubt that wetland conservation methane even begins to approach that which is being released as a result of permafrost melt. Do you think it does? Bit of a false dichotomy there, I think.
> 
> You are attempting to flip the dichotomy embraced by environmental nuts back onto me. That doesn't work. All I did was point out that wetland conservation IS a major source of methane production that is conveniently shoved under the carpet. Don't like it? Sorry. Nothing I can do about it.
> 
> There are things we can't stop, and there are things we can. I advocate only to work on what we can. And I'll do it without making fun of you, because that is the refuge of one who has no valid argument to offer.


In every instance of my rebuttal, the focus and force of my points has been against the IDEAS expressed, and NEVER a personal attack on you. Your last statement however is a statement that I need a "last refuge" and have no valid argument. Both are ways of taking the debate to a personal level. If this were usenet, no holds barred, that might work against lesser experienced posters. In a moderated forum like this, it is just bad manners.

I've made sufficient points to blow holes in the current response to climate change. Get back to me when you stop focusing on window dressing and parroting "talking points" and move on to recognizing that those aren't going to do anything meaningful.


----------



## Raeven

Lupine said:


> I think we need to stop arguing about who is causing it, and agree that it's happening.
> 
> How we allow that knowledge to affect our behavior is up to the individual. Most of us on here know there's more benefit to self-reliant, low-impact living than simply protecting the environment. Much of what we do to make ourselves and our families resilient against climate change have the secondary benefit of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere.
> 
> Keep calm, and carry on homesteading.


 Lupine, I appreciate what you are saying and I certainly agree we should all keep calm and carry on homesteading. However, we have a divergence of opinion about not caring about what is causing climate change. 

How we decide to solve any problem depends upon identifying the cause of that problem. In other words, if we allow ourselves to accept the notion that climate change is purely a natural phenomenon and not human-caused, then we will be merely reactive to the changes. If we accept that climate change in this instance is, in fact, human-caused, then we have an obligation to take steps to try and stop it. 

So getting that right is very important, isnât it?


----------



## Raeven

Harry Chickpea said:


> You misinterpret. I point out things that I think are obviously stupid, and try to force the debate to address those things. As an example: No one, as of yet, has responded to the greater issue of moving manufacturing to China, where pollution controls are lax, and then claiming high ground because pollution levels in the post-industrial U.S. are somehow improving. If you want to call it a global crisis, then _dadgummmit_ TREAT it as such. Tell corporations doing business in China that "No, you can't avoid pollution controls by going there. If you do, we won't allow your products into the U.S. or E.U." It can be that simple. It isn't done because it is about power, politics and money. Once you perceive just how entrenched those are, the "science," the media coverage, and the proposed restrictions start to make a lot more sense.


 I donât disagree about your points made re China, but itâs hard to lead from behind, which is what we are doing. The only way to instigate change is for people to understand how this all works and then be moved to actively work for change. 

Re power, politics and money, again, I agree. However, I vehemently disagree with your choice to put âscienceâ in quotation marks as if it isnât factual. Youâve yet to refute the facts as they have been presented within this thread beyond to imply they are incorrect, such as making scoffing comments referencing The Three Stooges.



Harry Chickpea said:


> I used the term "burp" because that is the term used by the extremist enviro-nuts. I am sick and tired of the BS scare tactics scare words, and overblown graphics and you can bet your sweet bippy I will use those same words when responding, even after those extremists have been forced to back down - so that the rhetoric level will get down to reasoned debate instead of emotional whinging.


 Since I did not use the term, âburp,â or use any overblown graphics, I fail to see how anything youâre saying here is relevant to the discussion. As I pointed out in my original post, I am interested to review any *factual* information you care to present. The innuendo about "enviro-nuts," "extremists" and "emotional whinging" is meaningless.



Harry Chickpea said:


> Siberia may become valuable crop land. The permafrost swamps thawing may be a place of refuge for many birds and animals. Glass half-full, glass half-empty.


 Iâd love to see the basis you have for making such an assertion in the face of the massive methane release it will entail. Itâs nice to think that could happen, though. I like the idea of unicorns, too.



Harry Chickpea said:


> Since you don't advocate that approach anyway, further discussion on it is moot. I showed just one way of how a simple proven technique could reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere. You don't like it, you cite a location that is nitrate poor as a reason why it won't work, and yet continue to bemoan that things are getting too hot. Why am I reminded of battered housewives who refuse to leave their husbands?


 Again, Iâm open to hearing the *factual* information you seem to hint you can share about how there is a âsimple proven techniqueâ to reduce carbon levels in the atmosphere. So far, the one you alluded to took exactly 30 seconds of Googling for me to find a reason why it wasnât such a hot idea. Iâm a little leery as regards the laws of unintended consequences, which is why I am reluctant to consider your âsimple proven techniqueâ at this point. And you still havenât said why itâs a better solution than simply shifting our reliance on fossil fuels to known renewables instead. But maybe I donât fully grasp the concept. Arenât you willing to educate me? How that relates to battered housewives, Iâve really no idea. Iâm sure thereâs more innuendo there, but Iâm just not getting it. Again, if you could please just stick to facts instead of trying to get your digs in, the conversation would be more productive.



Harry Chickpea said:


> You are attempting to flip the dichotomy embraced by environmental nuts back onto me. That doesn't work. All I did was point out that wetland conservation IS a major source of methane production that is conveniently shoved under the carpet. Don't like it? Sorry. Nothing I can do about it.


 What âdichotomy?â That a person can be in favor of preserving *existing* wetland areas and similarly not wish to create thousands more acres of them in the Arctic, where none have existed for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of years? I donât view that as a âdichotomy.â To me, itâs common sense â beaten housewives notwithstanding. So glad youâre not getting personal. 



Harry Chickpea said:


> In every instance of my rebuttal, the focus and force of my points has been against the IDEAS expressed, and NEVER a personal attack on you. Your last statement however is a statement that I need a "last refuge" and have no valid argument. Both are ways of taking the debate to a personal level. If this were usenet, no holds barred, that might work against lesser experienced posters. In a moderated forum like this, it is just bad manners.
> 
> I've made sufficient points to blow holes in the current response to climate change. Get back to me when you stop focusing on window dressing and parroting "talking points" and move on to recognizing that those aren't going to do anything meaningful.


 As for you making âsufficient points to blow holesâ in the current response to climate change, could you please point me to where youâve done that? Iâve seen almost nothing to refute any of the original points I or others made regarding the amount of carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere, the rate of deforestation and its devastating effects on climate. I canât even tell if you disagree with those points or just donât like that they are human-caused. Simply making âHarrumph, harrumph, poppycock,â noises isnât refutation. I understand you wish to imply that people like me donât have valid points to make, and Iâve invited you to share the information you have which proves it is so. Again, please keep to the facts, and we can have a fine discussion.


----------



## roberte

Harry Chickpea said:


> ....
> Of course no one dares mention that in wetland conservation, one of the PRIMARY results is eutrophic decay, creating an excess of methane.
> ....


Might want to look at "Methane fluxes show consistent temperature dependence across microbial to ecosystem scales" by Gabriel Yvon-Durocher, et al.

Methane production is temperature dependent; "_As a result, we show that both the emission of CH4 and the ratio of CH4 to CO2 emissions increase markedly with seasonal increases in temperature. Our findings suggest that global warming may have a large impact on the relative contributions of CO2 and CH4 to total greenhouse gas emissions from aquatic ecosystems, terrestrial wetlands and rice paddies._"

And we know that methane is 25 times more powerful by mass than CO2 as a GHG.

So, the concern about methanogenesis as a factor in climate change is not misplaced. However it needs be noted that the "excess" is a feedback from the temperature rising due to the increased levels of CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere. That "excess" is our doing; essentially before our escalating dumping of CO2 from fossil fuel burning and resultant tempurature rising there was a balance of methanogenesis and its breakdown.

Or, in other words, wetland conservation is not an initial cause of anthropogenic climate change. Basically, claiming it to be a factor is a skeptic's attempt to shift blame from anthropogenic CO2.

And we should consider the ecological benefits of conserving wetlands; plantlife, animal, water, soil all being less disrupted due to those wetlands continued existance (or rebuilding).


----------



## roberte

Twobottom said:


> 99% of scientists do not ''agree that climate change is man made''. That statement is false.


Yes, the OP was off a bit; about 1 or 2 %

Expert credibility in climate change

" Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) *97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC *outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers." http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 (my bolding)




Twobottom said:


> I do not know if climate change is man made, a naturally occurring event, or a combination of both...and neither do the scientists involved in the study.


Will be interesting to see some proof or an explanation of how you know the second part of that statement.


----------



## roberte

Harry Chickpea said:


> ....
> 
> I've made sufficient points to blow holes in the current response to climate change.


Where, exactly? 

I see no data supporting 

"... lot of the arctic issues are from the routes flown by planes leaving trails of dark unburned carbon on top of the ice..."

"...average dog has a greater negative carbon footprint than an SUV..."

"...seed the ocean with iron..."

"There ARE ways of reversing GW and turning the Earth into an ice ball within a few years. "

"Siberia may become valuable crop land..."



You are marginally correct in stating "You and I , as individuals, can't do squat to change anything on a meaningful basis.", but it seems pretty obvious that no one is asking 'one person' but rather everyone needs to be aware of, and doing something about, their impact.


----------



## farminghandyman

> Harry Chickpea


just curious if you own a car, truck, or tractor?

do you heat your house with wood or hydrocarbon, based fuels?

do you ever have Gas, (I think that is mostly methane).

did you know green house some times add CO2 to the air in the green house to have the plants grow faster.



it was not that long ago they said new York and Florida would be under water by now, and if all this ice has melted I think the stature of liberty and Miami is still above sea level, 

they have preached gloom and Doom now since the 70's and as of yet I have yet to see there claims come to reality,

the weather is in cycles and there has been heat and drought and wet and storms since the beginning of time, yes things change but if I do not think I or you are the cause of it, 
and really I think all this climate change is pure bunk, 
in the latter part of the 1800's was where most of our records were set, it has been over 100 years to break many of them, in the little house books there was book called the long winter, massive storms shut down the Dakota territory area for many months, (has not been a storm like since),
in 1949 another massive snow storm hit in January a lot west side of the mid west were snow in until spring, 
there were snow drifts over 30' deep in our area, 
back then it was just a bad snow storm, now it is global warming or climate change, or polar vortex, 

man life is only an average of 70 years, and most of us only remember about the last 20 to 30 with much clarity,
yes when we were kids the snow was up to our knees or waists (remember we were only 30to 40 " tall then), 
in most areas we only have a little over 100 years of records, and most were probably with out that accurate of measurement tools, 
even the satellites and space, we only can have about 60 years of data at the most, and in reality usually less than 30 years, and in some instances less than 10 years, 

regardless of what one believes the age of the earth is 7000 years or 70 billion years, 
that is a little like I have seen one second of a mans life and I know it all, 
even our recorded history with stories and such might make that a minuet of observation to thousand if not billions of years and think one can come to a reasonable conclusion, 
either man is tremendously conceded or think were gods (or some are gods)if we can come to a accurate conclusion with a that little of data, 

I think it was science that told us that man made trans fats were good for us and that we should not use natural fats (early 1900's up through the 1970-80 or so, and now there banded in many areas, so which group was right the 99% in the 1930's or the 99% on the 1990's?



> Remember when alarmists were predicting the end of winter as we know it? There was even talk about global cooling in the 1970&#8217;s. In the late 1990&#8217;s, Al Gore predicted we had roughly ten years left before global temperatures melted ice caps, and submerged major coastal communities. The UN even predicted in 2005 that there would be over 50 million &#8220;refugees&#8221; from communities deemed &#8220;uninhabitable&#8221; by global climate change. Back in 2012 the New York Times predicted the demise of the ski industry as global warming eradicated the sport from the face of the (increasingly hot) planet. And in 2013 a global warming research crew found themselves stuck in the Antarctic ice they set out to prove had been melting.


http://finance.townhall.com/columni...ming-is-grasping-at-straws-n1775939/page/full

How much faith do you put in the televangelist the world is coming to an end in one week, and nothing happens, do you keep sending him a check of your hard earned money when his predictions are so far off, so the next week he starts on a new campaign the world will end in 3 years, I got my math wrong please keep those donations a coming so I can keep my good work going, 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

By the way what percentage of the air is made up of CO2? What was it during the ice age has it eve been this high before?

one more question, why has the name of the cause changed? I thought Al Gore called it Global warming. and now it is Climate change.

why the name change, I think the "ice age" is still called the "ice age",


----------



## roberte

farminghandyman said:


> ....
> 
> it was not that long ago they said ....
> 
> 
> they have preached ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...one more question, why has the name of the cause changed?
> 
> .....


Who is "they"? And a quote or two perhaps?


". Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html


----------



## where I want to

On that cartoon about carping skeptics- seems it would be equally true if the labels were changed to true believers and the board labeled Questions About Global Warming. 

It always comes down to eliminating people and as long as true believers and global warming evangelists refuse to address that issue with the courage they have in wailing on opponents with the little they really know, nothing is going to change. The trouble with the intellectual true believer is the same as the religious true believer- there can be no acceptence of doubt, even if based in reality, beause true belief must be absolute or it fails. It tolerates no degree of uncertainty.


----------



## Harry Chickpea

Where I want to, that post #58 really hits a nail on the head. Climate Change is a replacement god for many people. Not in the sense of creator as such, but as a common group belief with accompanying litany and gospel. The same goes for many of us who are apostates if we follow the catechism used by the anti-GW media.

I don't follow either, and find that there are lots of flaws in both. However, the flaws in the anti-GW media are less offensive to me because they don't come with an immediate side order of "We MUST regulate! and We MUST tax! and We MUST restrict!" while it is obvious that such actions will do zip to make any meaningful change.

I don't particularly care which religion someone wants to follow as long as they don't constantly proselytize idiocy in my face or make demands upon me based on their own inner fears.

In post #55 I was asked for the supporting evidence for some of my responses. In a wider discussion, with more people on both sides and more people who are undecided lurking, I would spend the time to drag out old SciAms, Nature, Discovery, and a few other mags with some of the sources, and I would spend time to find links. However, the participants here are limited, the lurkers are few, and there is ample opportunity for people do to their own searching such as I did. I'm not falling into the "let's create another committee to study the problem, and continue to do so ad infinitum."

Man has extreme hubris. We build expensive constructions at the very edge of interfaces like land and water, or the atmosphere and space, or in places where we couldn't survive without technology and energy, and then complain bitterly when nature goes on about its business and submerges coastlines, builds mountains, creates earthquakes and drought, and zaps space full of radiation. 

We are a species of control freaks. If there is something or someone that can be controlled then something within us forces us to be the controller. Climate change legislation and propaganda (all info with a specific call to action is propaganda) is all about that desire to control the weather and nature itself. George Carlin said it pretty succinctly, when the earth gets sick of us, she will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, and their ain't _Nuthin _we can do about it. 

I'm considering responding in the future to the whole climate change blah blah with a single question:

If you can't even begin to get China (or India) to change its ways, and you support the pollution and carbon dioxide creation there by constantly buying products made there, just which fairy godmother told you you have a snowball's chance of changing the climate and pranked you to go out and pester and annoy the peasants?


----------



## Farmer Willy

To answer your question, me. I don't think climate change is man made. Any more questions?


----------



## thesedays

That climate change is happening cannot be disputed. What can be debated is how much of a role people play in it.


----------



## 12vman

Global Warming is caused by structures, roads or highways, and huge parking lots collecting heat unnaturally from the sun. One tall building that covers an acre at its base could collect as much heat as 100 acres of grass covered land..

What are clouds made of? Micro fine particles of debris (dust) and moisture. Where do tires go? Where do brake pads go? I don't see many piles of them laying along the roads..

What happens when a vehicle drives down the road while its raining? It kicks up water from the road and increases the surface of the water millions of times and hence, adds more moisture to the air than normal. Could this be the reason for the super storms that we've been having?

Just a brain fart from an 'ol hillbilly looking at it from a different angle. I don't think methane or co2 has anything to do with it..


----------



## farminghandyman

thesedays said:


> That climate change is happening cannot be disputed. What can be debated is how much of a role people play in it.


 tell me how it is changing, 

explain what is happening that has not happen in the past at some time or another, 

What is Changing?


----------



## thesedays

farminghandyman said:


> tell me how it is changing,
> 
> explain what is happening that has not happen in the past at some time or another,
> 
> What is Changing?


Climate is a fluid thing and always has been. Like I said, exactly how much of it is the result of human actions is unknown.


----------



## Jim-mi

Yes climate changes are happening constantly . . . . . Totally at the whim of Ma Nature.....

Not just because a cow farted...


----------



## roberte

Farmer Willy said:


> To answer your question, me. I don't think climate change is man made. Any more questions?





farminghandyman said:


> tell me how it is changing,
> 
> explain what is happening that has not happen in the past at some time or another,
> 
> What is Changing?





thesedays said:


> That climate change is happening cannot be disputed. What can be debated is how much of a role people play in it.


On the first part, you are correct: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, ad the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"

"Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3)."

"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5)."

On the second, however, not so much: "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."

IPCC 2013, SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


----------



## roberte

IPCC 2013 SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


----------



## roberte

Harry Chickpea said:


> ....
> 
> In post #55 I was asked for the supporting evidence for some of my responses. In a wider discussion, with more people on both sides and more people who are undecided lurking, I would spend the time to drag out old SciAms, Nature, Discovery, and a few other mags with some of the sources, and I would spend time to find links.
> ....



The science isn't that difficult to follow, there are ample resources readily and easily available:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...sensus-on.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...pacts/science/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/


IF there were a cohesive alternative theory, or even a combination of hypotheses ( Milankovich cycles, magnetic pole, conspiracy, undersea volcanoes, natural cycles, etc) that supports the observations, there would be papers showing that. However the research is in the 97% plus range supporting the simple statement "*Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system.*"

IPCC 2013, SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._SPM_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Harry Chickpea

From the same post:

If you can't even begin to get China (or India) to change its ways, and you support the pollution and carbon dioxide creation there by constantly buying products made there, just which fairy godmother told you you have a snowball's chance of changing the climate and pranked you to go out and pester and annoy the peasants?


----------



## roberte

Harry Chickpea said:


> From the same post:
> 
> If you can't even begin to get China (or India) to change its ways,....


"The Chinese government attaches great importance to the issue of climate change. In
2011, the Fourth Session of the Eleventh National Peopleâs Congress approved the
Outline of the 12th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development,
which defines the objectives, tasks and general framework for Chinaâs economic and
social development during the 12th Five-Year Plan period. The Outline underlines the
importance of climate change and integrates measures for addressing it into the
countryâs mid-term and long-term plans for economic and social development. It sets
binding targets to reduce energy consumption per unit of GDP by 16 percent, cut CO2
emissions per unit of GDP by 17 percent, and raise the proportion of non-fossil fuels
in the overall primary energy mix to 11.4 percent. It defines the objectives, tasks and
policy orientation of Chinaâs response to climate change over the next five years and identifies key tasks, including controlling greenhouse gas emissions, adapting toclimate change, and strengthening international cooperation.
To fulfill the countryâs objectives and tasks in addressing climate change during the 12th Five-Year Plan period and promote green and low-carbon development, the State Council has issued a number of important policy documents, including the Work Plan for Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions During the 12th Five-Year Plan Period and the Comprehensive Work Plan for Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction
During the 12th Five-Year Plan Period, to strengthen planning and guidance in addressing climate change. Relevant departments and local governments have actively addressed climate change and made remarkable progress in this regard. China continues to play a positive and constructive role in international climate change negotiations and pushed for positive outcomes at the Durban Climate Change Conference, thereby making a significant contribution to addressing global climate change.

China's Policies and Actions for Addressing Climate Change
(2012)
The National Development and Reform Commission
The Peopleâs Republic of China
http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File1324.pdf


----------



## where I want to

Well that made it perfectly clear- a belief system that looks to a self-reported story on China's efforts at environmental issue really can accept any convenient idea as true.


----------



## farminghandyman

roberte said:


> Who is "they"? And a quote or two perhaps?
> 
> 
> ". Its first use was in a 1975 Science article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html


 
It thought I had, so here it is again, in the article quote I used there are links to two other articles, I am not sure all the links will work since I copied it again from my original post,



> Remember when alarmists were predicting the end of winter as we know it? There was even talk about global cooling in the 1970âs. In the late 1990âs, Al Gore predicted we had roughly ten years left before global temperatures melted ice caps, and submerged major coastal communities. The UN even predicted in 2005 that there would be over 50 million ârefugeesâ from communities deemed âuninhabitableâ by global climate change. Back in 2012 the New York Times predicted the demise of the ski industry as global warming eradicated the sport from the face of the (increasingly hot) planet. And in 2013 a global warming research crew found themselves stuck in the Antarctic ice they set out to prove had been melting.
> 
> http://finance.townhall.com/columni...ming-is-grasping-at-straws-n1775939/page/full


----------



## dablack

I really don't know how anyone could believe ANYTHING that comes out of the IPCC. Any research into the orginization will show they manipulate data for their own funding. Also, who cares what the IPCC says this year or last year. Go back to 1997, 1998, 1999. See if ANY of their predictions have come true. No? Then why in the world would we believe them now? Also, I worked at NASA for 10 years. Any "weather" data coming out of there is politically motivated. 

Now, stop treating CO2 like a polutant and take care of ACTUAL polution. Stuff that actually hurts humans, animals, or plants. 

I love how with 20, 30, or even 100 years of "data" we think we know what is going to happen next. How arrogant is man. If nothing else, the IPCC has PROVED that we don't know whats going to happen next. Oh yeah, they also proved that fear = funding. 

Austin


----------



## DEKE01

I know this will not matter a bit to members of the cult of climate change, but it is written by an IPCC insider, who apparently believes in AGW, but not the hype of AGW. He reveals how the institutionalized bias exaggerates the problems, hides the costs of fixes, and how gov't bureaucrats alter IPCC reports to suit political agendas. 

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/20/un-climate-change-expert-reveals-bias-in-global-warming-report/?cmpid=NL_opinion

Of course it is on a FOX News site, so those of you looking for a reason not to question your faith in the climate gods can ignore the article.


----------



## roberte

where I want to said:


> Well that made it perfectly clear- a belief system that looks to a self-reported story on China's efforts at environmental issue really can accept any convenient idea as true.



Might want to look at some statistics before pushing too far into that topic.

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/China/United-States/Environment

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproje...12&cid=regions,&s---=2008&e---=2012&unit=BKWH

"It is likely that China will meet and even exceed its renewable energy development targets for 2020. Total power capacity from renewables could reach 400 gigawatts by 2020, nearly triple the 135 gigawatts existing in 2006, with hydro, wind, biomass, and solar PV power making the greatest contributions.More than one-third of Chinaâs households could be using solar hot water by 2020 if current targets and policies are continued. Use of other renewables, including biogas and perhaps solar thermal power, will increase as well."
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5491


----------



## where I want to

Just ask the Japanese and Koreans how much pollution China 'exports' each year. It's the only country I know that causes dangerous air quality alerts in other countries.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> I know this will not matter a bit to members of the cult of climate change, but it is written by an IPCC insider, who apparently believes in AGW, but not the hype of AGW. He reveals how the institutionalized bias exaggerates the problems, hides the costs of fixes, and how gov't bureaucrats alter IPCC reports to suit political agendas.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/05/20/un-climate-change-expert-reveals-bias-in-global-warming-report/?cmpid=NL_opinion
> 
> Of course it is on a FOX News site, so those of you looking for a reason not to question your faith in the climate gods can ignore the article.


Did you notice it was "opinion"? And Dr. Tol didn't quote anything to substantiate the claims? By the way, his area of study is economics, not climate science; maybe I should start quoting Dr. Krugman.... Or the NYT, WaPo, opinion pages or the NC legislature for science......

Back to the topic at hand, as the OP pointed out, major papers, virtually every scientist, virtually every country, virtually every state, all understand that our continued burning of carbon is effecting the environment in a wide range of metrics. We know what is happening, and research narrows down the range of probabilities and rates.

The few actual climate scientists who claim "no warming", "pause", etc don't publish much in the way of proof that stands up to scrutiny. Papers that support Anthropogenic CO2 causing climate change bring together a cohesive theory that those papers support. IF Dr. Tol, et al had the data to support the claims, there is a place at the table for their discussion. However, they seem rather more interested in writing for the opinion page.


----------



## roberte

where I want to said:


> Just ask the Japanese and Koreans how much pollution China 'exports' each year. It's the only country I know that causes dangerous air quality alerts in other countries.



And by most accounts, (http://www.worldwatch.org/bookstore...nergy-and-energy-efficiency-china-current-sta) China is not only quite aware of its role in emissions, it is also working quite hard at lessening its impact.

Also look at strides in energy efficiency, renewables production, etc in the EU.

Esp, compared to, North Carolina, Oklahoma, ..... and US policy.

"All countries emit pollutants that affect their neighbors. Europe, downwind of North America, receives some American pollution, for example. The big issue, Dr. Prather said, is the âlarge-scale building up of this stuff in the Northern Hemisphere,â as well as growing emissions in the Southern Hemisphere from fast-developing economies like Brazil."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/business/energy-environment/worries-in-the-path-of-chinas-air.html


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Did you notice it was "opinion"? And Dr. Tol didn't quote anything to substantiate the claims? By the way, his area of study is economics, not climate science; maybe I should start quoting Dr. Krugman.... Or the NYT, WaPo, opinion pages or the NC legislature for science......
> 
> Back to the topic at hand, as the OP pointed out, major papers, virtually every scientist, virtually every country, virtually every state, all understand that our continued burning of carbon is effecting the environment in a wide range of metrics. We know what is happening, and research narrows down the range of probabilities and rates.
> 
> The few actual climate scientists who claim "no warming", "pause", etc don't publish much in the way of proof that stands up to scrutiny. Papers that support Anthropogenic CO2 causing climate change bring together a cohesive theory that those papers support. IF Dr. Tol, et al had the data to support the claims, there is a place at the table for their discussion. However, they seem rather more interested in writing for the opinion page.


Nothing upsets a "believer" like a heretic who has been a believer and rejected the faith.


----------



## roberte

dablack said:


> I really don't know how anyone could believe ANYTHING that comes out of the IPCC.
> ....


Are we to just assume that you have some actual evidence, some data, to support claims that pop up from skeptic blogs?

In spite of Dr. Tol's opinion, "Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15Â°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35Â°C per decade. As the IPCC notes,

"global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990â2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections." 
http://www.theguardian.com/environm...t/01/ipcc-global-warming-projections-accurate


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> Nothing upsets a "believer" like a heretic who has been a believer and rejected the faith.



Still waiting for your actual data that supports your claims.
Or Dr. Tol's data that supports the opinion article he wrote. You'd think he would have written a paper to be peer reivewed in an economics journal if he had the data to support that opinion.

Meanwhile, virtually every scientist, virtually every country, virtually every state in the US acknowledges that our profligate burning of fossil fuels is negatively effecting - at unprecedented rates - the Earth's environment.


----------



## roberte

farminghandyman said:


> It thought I had, so here it is again, in the article quote I used there are links to two other articles, I am not sure all the links will work since I copied it again from my original post,


Another opinion column, ...

And the link to weaselzippers for proof.......

Any real data? Published somewhere?


----------



## roberte

Again, there is plenty of evidence, supporting data....


The science isn't that difficult to follow, there are ample resources readily and easily available:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...sensus-on.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming...pacts/science/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/


IF there were a cohesive alternative theory, or even a combination of hypotheses ( Milankovich cycles, magnetic pole, conspiracy, undersea volcanoes, natural cycles, etc) that supports the observations, there would be papers showing that. However the research is in the 97% plus range supporting the simple statement "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."

IPCC 2013, SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._SPM_FINAL.pdf


----------



## roberte

ASSESSING AND MANAGING THE RISKS OF CLIMATE CHANGE
Human interference with the climate system is occurring,1 and climate change poses risks for
human and natural systems (Figure SPM.1). The assessment of impacts, adaptation, and
vulnerability in the Working Group II contribution to the IPCC&#8217;s Fifth Assessment Report
(WGII AR5) evaluates how patterns of risks and potential benefits are shifting due to climate
change. It considers how impacts and risks related to climate change can be reduced and
managed through adaptation and mitigation. The report assesses needs, options, opportunities,
constraints, resilience, limits, and other aspects associated with adaptation.
Climate change involves complex interactions and changing likelihoods of diverse impacts. A
focus on risk, which is new in this report, supports decision-making in the context of climate
change, and complements other elements of the report. People and societies may perceive or rank
risks and potential benefits differently, given diverse values and goals.
Compared to past WGII reports, the WGII AR5 assesses a substantially larger knowledge base of
relevant scientific, technical, and socioeconomic literature. Increased literature has facilitated
comprehensive assessment across a broader set of topics and sectors, with expanded coverage of
human systems, adaptation, and the ocean. See Background Box SPM.1.2
Section A of this summary characterizes observed impacts, vulnerability and exposure, and
adaptive responses to date. Section B examines future risks and potential benefits. Section C
considers principles for effective adaptation and the broader interactions among adaptation,
mitigation, and sustainable development. Background Box SPM.2 defines central concepts, and
Background Box SPM.3 introduces terms used to convey the degree of certainty in key findings.
Chapter references in brackets and in footnotes indicate support for findings, figures, and tables.

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Still waiting for your actual data that supports your claims.
> Or Dr. Tol's data that supports the opinion article he wrote. You'd think he would have written a paper to be peer reivewed in an economics journal if he had the data to support that opinion.
> 
> Meanwhile, virtually every scientist, virtually every country, virtually every state in the US acknowledges that our profligate burning of fossil fuels is negatively effecting - at unprecedented rates - the Earth's environment.


why is it so important to you that I accept your religion?


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> why is it so important to you that I accept your religion?


Where's the proof Anthropogenic Climate Change is a "religion"?

The OP was showing us a link to the science; science starts with observation, data. Then builds a theory based on those data and observations.

IF there is an alternative cohesive theory that fits the observations, there would be a scientific discussion on its merits.

But what those advocating alternates have only a smattering of observations, dubious use of data, and choose to publish in townhall, Fox, WSJ opinion pages. Something on the order of 1% of science papers are support those claims.


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Where's the proof Anthropogenic Climate Change is a "religion"?
> 
> The OP was showing us a link to the science; science starts with observation, data. Then builds a theory based on those data and observations.
> 
> IF there is an alternative cohesive theory that fits the observations, there would be a scientific discussion on its merits.
> 
> But what those advocating alternates have only a smattering of observations, dubious use of data, and choose to publish in townhall, Fox, WSJ opinion pages. Something on the order of 1% of science papers are support those claims.


Is the UN HQ the highest of your high holy places?


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> why is it so important to you that I accept your religion?



Actually, if any of those points are too specific or too science-based for you to discuss, how about just pointing us to the resources you have used to form your opinion Who is informing you?

The simple point is that the basic mechanisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change have been known since the Victorian era, the research since then has continued to point to the same causes.


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Actually, if any of those points are too specific or too science-based for you to discuss, how about just pointing us to the resources you have used to form your opinion Who is informing you?
> 
> The simple point is that the basic mechanisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change have been known since the Victorian era, the research since then has continued to point to the same causes.


Yes, you keep repeating your chants, but you haven't answered my Q. Why is it so important to you that I believe in your religion? If you prefer not to call it a religion, fine. Why are you so invested in me or anyone else becoming a believer?


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ... I don't get why the AGW crowd prefers to shame me, bully me, or silence me, instead of presenting scientific evidence to show why the skeptic's points are wrong.
> ....



http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/



DEKE01 said:


> Yes, you keep repeating your chants, but you haven't answered my Q. Why is it so important to you that I believe in your religion? If you prefer not to call it a religion, fine. Why are you so invested in me or anyone else becoming a believer?


The OP was showing us a link to the science; science starts with observation, data. Then builds a theory based on those data and observations.


The simple point is that the basic mechanisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change have been known since the Victorian era, the research since then has continued to point to the same causes.

IF there is an alternative cohesive theory that fits the observations, there would be a scientific discussion on its merits.

But what those advocating alternates have only a smattering of observations, dubious use of data, and choose to publish in townhall, Fox, WSJ opinion pages. Something on the order of 1% of science papers are support those claims.

How about just pointing us to the resources you have used to form your opinion; who is informing you?


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, you keep repeating your chants, but you haven't answered my Q. Why is it so important to you that I believe in your religion? If you prefer not to call it a religion, fine. Why are you so invested in me or anyone else becoming a believer?


The science showing the causes of Anthropogenic Climate Change is unequivocal. Attempting to label it 'religion' or 'belief' is an attempt to make an equivalent to the opinions espoused by skeptics.

IF there were data to support an alternative theory, it would have been published. And skeptics would be pointing to it.

But, we get Townhall forums, weazelzippers, WSJ editorials, opinion pieces.....

Not equivalent sources by a long shot. 

Now, the real question is why would a rational, intelligent, educated person attempt to make those two disparate types of literature seem to be equivalent in a scientific debate? It isn't rational, it is easy to see that the positions aren't equally supported by fact, and it is more an attempt to use a logical fallacy rather than educated, rational critical thinking.


----------



## DEKE01

Yes, Roberte, you've said all that repeatedly. Why is it so important to you that I believe?


----------



## DEKE01

Uh oh...

_It is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.

Don&#8217;t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

The survey results show geoscientists (also known as earth scientists) and engineers hold similar views as meteorologists. Two recent surveys of meteorologists (summarized here and here) revealed similar skepticism of alarmist global warming claims._

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/


----------



## DEKE01

Uh oh again. Maybe it isn't really 97% agreement

_But the 15 skeptical scientists said the White House is trying to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of the fossil fuels industry when there is little evidence to back up that claim. The Earth&#8217;s climate is very cyclical and has gone through many changes in the past, the scientists said, without humans emitting carbon dioxide.

&#8220;This NCA (White House&#8217;s &#8220;National Climate Assessment&#8221 is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,&#8221; the skeptics wrote. &#8220;As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.&#8221;

&#8220;We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth&#8217;s climate by burning fossil fuels,&#8221; they added. &#8220;The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.&#8221;_

http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/daily-news-article/skeptical-scientists-debunk-white-house-global-warming-report/


----------



## DEKE01

Uh oh again again.

1000 dissenting scientists, many of them formerly members of the IPCC

_
&#8220;The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.&#8221; The global warming establishment &#8220;has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.&#8221; &#8212; Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]_

http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/


----------



## DEKE01

OK, all I did was search "climate scientist who disagree" and got 7M+ results. I have posted 3 links to show that climate scientists and related scientists fault for the IPCC for all the same reasons us everyday folk cite. Things like

- the earth is too big for man to change
-we have data only from 100 years and are trying to project 10K and 1M year trends
- the IPCC suppresses "denier" papers and contrary data and forces out heretics
- The IPCC is agenda driven and is being used against US interests
- even if AGW is true, we can't be sure it is bad and we can't stop it
- that climate is driven by the sun
- the earth has been through many climate cycles, has always taken care of itself, and will do so again, without much caring about man's temper tantrums
- CO2 is not all bad and might even result in a greening of the world

etc, etc. 

I'm not qualified, nor do I care to analyze the conflicting data and claims. Other than listing IPCC websites and websites that cite IPCC websites, no one else here has presented any reason to believe that they have the qualifications either. So the believers, those who have accepted the religion of AGW, repeat and repeat their chants of 97% no matter that it is plainly not true.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> Yes, Roberte, you've said all that repeatedly. Why is it so important to you that I believe?













The science isn't that difficult to follow, there are ample resources readily and easily available:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/


explaining the who, what, when, where, and why.

So it isn't a matter of 'belief', but rather basic critical thinking skills. Yet a small portion of our populace, and a larger, but still minority, portion of our elected representatives, have made an irrational choice based on using defective, skewed, incomplete information that has become a political tool. 

Much as Raeven (


Raeven said:


> How we decide to solve any problem depends upon identifying the cause of that problem


) said, we have the data, we know the the who, what, when, where, and why. That subset of the American populace, driven by politicized data, is going to wind up with us having a less than effective mitigation and adaption climate change policy.

IF there were a cohesive alternative theory, or even a combination of hypotheses ( Milankovich cycles, magnetic pole, conspiracy, undersea volcanoes, natural cycles, etc) that supports the observations, there would be papers showing that. However the research is in the 97% plus range supporting the simple statement "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."

IPCC 2013, SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/ima..._SPM_FINAL.pdf


So, think; when your grandchildren ask you 'What did you do when the science was clear that you needed to act, what did you do?. You can tell them that your efforts cost them the higher taxes needed to pay for the increased costs in both mitigation and adaptation. You can tell them how your efforts at obstruction helped cause deaths around the world, reduced the world food supply, reduced nature's ability to cope and react to what we have done to the ecosystem.

Or you can just go back to the Fox channel on TV, read more townhall forums, skeptic blogs, science denier sites like studentnewsdaily, 'papers' that don't present all the data in order to come to a false conclusion, and cover your ears and eyes to what is quite obviously happening to the world around you.

Again, IF you, or other skeptics, can point to a cohesive alternative theory with the attendant data and evidence to support it, bring it forward. You've had a couple of centuries to do so.


----------



## badlander

It's all about the governments covert agenda to control every aspect of our lives.

Generate articles about man made global warming then to go head hunting for the evil fossil fuel companies.

They are doing the same thing with ammo. No gun control? Dry up the ammo supplies so you can't find reasonably priced .22 or other popular rounds.

The earth heats up and the earth cools down for one reason or another and will continue to do so.

Just please don't believe everything that comes out of any article that is 'government sponsored'.


----------



## roberte

Show us how many of the claims before are actually supported by science. NOT blogs, not editorials, not magazine articles, ....


DEKE01 said:


> ....
> 
> - the earth is too big for man to change


Obviously wrong; we have multiple organizations from around the world, defense depts, banks, insurance corps., health organizations, all showing local or worldwide effects attributable to our burning of fossil fuels.




DEKE01 said:


> -we have data only from 100 years and are trying to project 10K and 1M year trends


Again, a lie. Data goes back thousands (millions in some )of years. We have thermometer and natural observations going back 200+ alone.




DEKE01 said:


> - the IPCC suppresses "denier" papers and contrary data and forces out heretics


Ah, conspiracy theories..... Again, bring forward the evidence that supports them



DEKE01 said:


> - The IPCC is agenda driven and is being used against US interests


Ah, conspiracy theories..... Again, bring forward the evidence that supports them



DEKE01 said:


> - even if AGW is true, we can't be sure it is bad...


Where is the evidence to support what you consider positive effects. What science shows a positive effect that isn't tempered by stronger negative ones?




DEKE01 said:


> ...and we can't stop it


What evidence has been brought forward that supports that claim?



DEKE01 said:


> - that climate is driven by the sun


Papers? Actual figure showing radiative effect? Relative strength?



DEKE01 said:


> - the earth has been through many climate cycles, has always taken care of itself, and will do so again, without much caring about man's temper tantrums


Yup, over geological time spans, before humans, with major differences in how basic earth chemistry/ecological systems worked. Show us where CO2 levels were as high as now, show us the timescale.




DEKE01 said:


> - CO2 is not all bad and might even result in a greening of the world


Show us the 'mights', how do they play out? What papers show only positive changes?




DEKE01 said:


> ...nor do I care to analyze
> ....


Got it.


----------



## roberte

Darren said:


> ....
> Now we're being asked to believe that 99% of the worlds scientists believe in global warming when probably 99.99% have no expertise in climatology. Just because someone is an expert in some "science" does not make their opinion worth anything in a field for which they did not study.
> ....


97-98% of scientist WORKING in the field of climate science:

Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg ,et al

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) *97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC *outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the *researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.* http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

No politics, not a survey. Data-driven conclusion.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ...Your myths site has many logic flaws and the three pages I read all dodge and misrepresent the points of the anti-AGW's.



Assuming you are discussing Skeptical Science's Skeptic Arguments (http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage), we can start there; what three pages? How do they "dodge" the point? And explain how the skeptic position is "misrepresent(ed).



DEKE01 said:


> ....
> There are climate scientists out there who question AGW. Why aren't those folks challenged head on in a public debate when instead they are defunded, fired, and shamed?


Examples?



DEKE01 said:


> Why aren't the failed predictions of the models addressed instead of just giving us a bunch of obfuscation about how great they are? The models predicted more and stronger storms, why does the AGW crowd keep repeating a lie when it is so obviously not true?


If you can point us to a specific example, then we can discuss that.

Or possibly use "How Accurate Are Existing Computer Climate Modeling Techniques?" from the Union of Concerned Scientists 
Or Chapter 9 from IPCC's 5th Assessment, 9. Evaluation of Climate Models 


Actually, if any of those points are too specific or too science-based to discuss, how about just pointing us to the resources you have used to form your opinion Who is informing you?

The simple point is that the basic mechanisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change have been known since the Victorian era, the research since then has continued to point to the same causes.

A typical skeptic position is to take one small issue - one that is often out of date, misquoted, pulled out of context, or misunderstood - and attempt to claim it puts the whole body of research into the trashbin.


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> So, think; when your grandchildren ask you 'What did you do when the science was clear that you needed to act, what did you do?. You can tell them that your efforts cost them the higher taxes needed to pay for the increased costs in both mitigation and adaptation. You can tell them how your efforts at obstruction helped cause deaths around the world, reduced the world food supply, reduced nature's ability to cope and react to what we have done to the ecosystem.
> 
> Or you can just go back to the Fox channel on TV, read more townhall forums, skeptic blogs, science denier sites like studentnewsdaily, 'papers' that don't present all the data in order to come to a false conclusion, and cover your ears and eyes to what is quite obviously happening to the world around you.
> 
> Again, IF you, or other skeptics, can point to a cohesive alternative theory with the attendant data and evidence to support it, bring it forward. You've had a couple of centuries to do so.


Ahhh...so we are getting to the root of your issue. You want me to be for higher taxes for mitigation efforts. You claim science is on your side, show me the science that says these mitigation efforts will have a meaningful effect. 

You can go back to your "progressive" brethren of the AGW religion and tell them you have failed to recruit another convert. 

As to continuing to claim this is some republican, FOX News, right wing conspiracy, why not read the cites I showed you. Many of those are IPCC approved scientists who differ with your "obvious" observations. As I've told you, you need to explain why those folks are deniers and doubters. You just keep repeating your religious dogma as if repetition will make it true.


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Show us how many of the claims before are actually supported by science. NOT blogs, not editorials, not magazine articles, ....
> 
> 
> Obviously wrong; we have multiple organizations from around the world, defense depts, banks, insurance corps., health organizations, all showing local or worldwide effects attributable to our burning of fossil fuels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, a lie. Data goes back thousands (millions in some )of years. We have thermometer and natural observations going back 200+ alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories..... Again, bring forward the evidence that supports them
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, conspiracy theories..... Again, bring forward the evidence that supports them
> 
> 
> 
> Where is the evidence to support what you consider positive effects. What science shows a positive effect that isn't tempered by stronger negative ones?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence has been brought forward that supports that claim?
> 
> 
> 
> Papers? Actual figure showing radiative effect? Relative strength?
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, over geological time spans, before humans, with major differences in how basic earth chemistry/ecological systems worked. Show us where CO2 levels were as high as now, show us the timescale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show us the 'mights', how do they play out? What papers show only positive changes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got it.


You conveniently ignore the fact that those claims are made by IPCC personnel. I dare say those folks know more about climate than either you or I and I dare say you have done no critical analysis of the date, you are merely repeating religious dogma.


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Assuming you are discussing Skeptical Science's Skeptic Arguments (http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage), we can start there; what three pages? How do they "dodge" the point? And explain how the skeptic position is "misrepresent(ed).
> 
> 
> 
> Examples?
> 
> 
> 
> If you can point us to a specific example, then we can discuss that.
> 
> Or possibly use "How Accurate Are Existing Computer Climate Modeling Techniques?" from the Union of Concerned Scientists
> Or Chapter 9 from IPCC's 5th Assessment, 9. Evaluation of Climate Models
> 
> 
> Actually, if any of those points are too specific or too science-based to discuss, how about just pointing us to the resources you have used to form your opinion Who is informing you?
> 
> The simple point is that the basic mechanisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change have been known since the Victorian era, the research since then has continued to point to the same causes.
> 
> A typical skeptic position is to take one small issue - one that is often out of date, misquoted, pulled out of context, or misunderstood - and attempt to claim it puts the whole body of research into the trashbin.


You are in such a tizzy that you are replying to a message that you already replied to and said all the same things at least once, usually more times before. You also aren't reading my messages because when you ask who informs me, I posted three messages to that very point. 

If you are really worried about my carbon footprint, I'll put it against the average American's and beat it every time. I'll probably beat yours as well. You see, I may be a right wing lunatic, but I'm also a tree hugging environmental wacko. I may not believe CO2 is the boggy man you claim, but I have other reasons for building a net-zero home and I'm working on creating a net-zero farm. 

I recently read an essay by Orson Scott Card, Sci-fi and fantasy author, and his thesis was that what is wrong with American politics and a lot of Americans is that too many people force adherence to the party line and assume that all others either follow their party or the other party, never leaving room that most people have positions that cover a range of left, right, center, pro-gov't, anti-gov't, and libertarian.


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> 97-98% of scientist WORKING in the field of climate science:
> 
> No politics, not a survey. Data-driven conclusion.


I posted last night a PEER REVIEWED survey that put to rest the 97% claim. Yet, I'm guessing you'll keep repeating is ad nauseam.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> I posted last night a PEER REVIEWED survey that put to rest the 97% claim. Yet, I'm guessing you'll keep repeating is ad nauseam.












You claim peer-reviewed papers and link to studentnews and forbes editorials.

IF you have evidence, bring it forward.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting for a comprehensive alternative theory.

And we note that the vocal minority haven't been able to bring data to disprove what 97% of those with expertise have been showing us for the past couple of centuries.

IF there were some solid science, there'd be a discussion. And the skeptics have had centuries to bring their evidence. 


Where is it? A Forbes editorial? One that attempts to equate a survey of engineers with a large body of those publishing the science? One that says ' and they agree with meteorologists? Weather... We are attempting to discuss climate.....


And the OP's paper still stands.


----------



## roberte




----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> You conveniently ignore the fact that those claims are made by IPCC personnel. .



Evidence?




DEKE01 said:


> I dare say those folks know more about climate than either you or I...


possibly, though again you are attempting to make a claim that a few papers over a couple of centuries of research are equivalent to the thousands of papers supporting the IPCC conclusions.



DEKE01 said:


> ... and I dare say you have done no critical analysis of the date, you are merely repeating religious dogma












religion, not so much.

The science showing the causes of Anthropogenic Climate Change is unequivocal. Attempting to label it 'religion' or 'belief' is an attempt to make an equivalent to the opinions espoused by skeptics.

IF there were data to support an alternative theory, it would have been published. And skeptics would be pointing to it.

But, we get Townhall forums, weazelzippers, WSJ editorials, opinion pieces.....

Not equivalent sources by a long shot. 

Now, the real question is why would a rational, intelligent, educated person attempt to make those two disparate types of literature seem to be equivalent in a scientific debate? It isn't rational, it is easy to see that the positions aren't equally supported by fact, and it is more an attempt to use a logical fallacy rather than educated, rational critical thinking.


----------



## Raeven

Harry Chickpea said:


> If you can't even begin to get China (or India) to change its ways, and you support the pollution and carbon dioxide creation there by constantly buying products made there, just which fairy godmother told you you have a snowball's chance of changing the climate and pranked you to go out and pester and annoy the peasants?


Youâre the one who said we canât get China/India to change. I didnât say that. I said we couldnât get them to change *while leading from behind* â which is what we are doing now. Youâre right to the extent that itâs hard to ask another country to make significant changes to their polluting outputs while we here in the USA suck up 25% of the worldâs available resources and continue with our own abhorrent practices. Kind of difficult to take the moral high ground in such a situation.

In response to poboyâs link: http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/...ebunked-bengtsson-story-in-new-forbes-column/




DEKE01 said:


> I'm not qualified, nor do I care to analyze the conflicting data and claims. Other than listing IPCC websites and websites that cite IPCC websites, no one else here has presented any reason to believe that they have the qualifications either. So the believers, those who have accepted the religion of AGW, repeat and repeat their chants of 97% no matter that it is plainly not true.


Soâ¦ if I have this right, youâre willing to slap up a bunch of poorly-sourced links and rely on them to the extent that they form your basis for your very outspoken denial of climate changeâ¦ but you canât be bothered to source and determine if they are legitimate or not?

Some things to know about Sage Publications: In November 2013 Sage's membership was placed under review for six months after a Sage journal, the Journal of International Medical Research, published a false and intentionally flawed paper created and submitted by a reporter for Science as part of a "sting" to test the effectiveness of the peer-review processes of open access journals. Sage's membership was reinstated at the end of the review period following changes to journal's editorial processes.

In other words, accuracy doesnât mean much to Sage Publications. Well, until perhaps more recently.

In reply to this link: http://www.studentnewsdaily.com/dai...sts-debunk-white-house-global-warming-report/

I offer this link: http://www.skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html

Further, Mr. Easterbrook works for the Heartland Institute. Hereâs about all you need to know about that place to understand where heâs coming from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

Funded by the fossil fuels industry and big tobacco. There you have it.

Did you know that in 2009, a *bi-partisan* bill (Waxman-Markey) acknowledging and addressing climate change was passed by the House? And that before it hit the Senate for a vote, the fossil fuel industry spent *$500 million* on propaganda and lobbyists to stop the legislation? (Incidentally, thatâs the same amount of money American tax payers lost in the attempt to develop the Solyndra technology. Too bad Solyndra didnât work out, but itâs good to keep in mind that the figure is exactly the same as what the fossil fuel industry spent to stop *ONE BILL*.)



DEKE01 said:


> Yes, you keep repeating your chants, but you haven't answered my Q. Why is it so important to you that I believe in your religion? If you prefer not to call it a religion, fine. Why are you so invested in me or anyone else becoming a believer?


 Hereâs the problem: If youâre right and weâre wrong, then no harm, no foul. By pursuing clean energy options, we as a nation simply get out in front of good technology and do what weâve always done â innovate and lead. But if weâre right and *youâre* wrong, then your inaction puts us *all* at serious risk.

Iâve heard a lot of slurs leveled at those of us who accept that climate change is real and human-driven. âAlarmist,â âenviro-nuts,â etc. But I guess I donât know how to talk about an alarming situation without sounding âalarmist.â It is what it is. Where the science points us is very alarming indeed.

I was never invested in this debate one way or another. I only cared where the facts led. It would actually have been nice to learn you all were right â that the AGW crowd was ginning up a bunch of support to address the issue of AGW for some nefarious (never explained) reason, and that, in fact, AGW wasnât happening. I was totally open to that as a possibility. But thatâs not what I learned. I weighed the arguments and facts on both sides of the debate very carefully over a couple of decades. In doing so, they led to only one reasonable conclusion.

I donât have kids or grandkids, Iâve had a great life and likely will be little impacted by what is coming. But I still feel an enormous sense of responsibility to get this right for the future of humanity as a whole. It's not really the planet that's at risk. It's us.

And the worst thing is? I donât even think it requires that much change to address the problems. We need to shift our energy uses from fossil fuels to known, clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Nobody has to give up driving their cars or using their computers. Not everyone has to recycle and compost (though it would be nice if we did).

I believe the countries that take the leadership roles in addressing human-engineered climate change will be the winners, if winners there may still be. Weâve got some pretty good innovation happening in this country. If we get behind it, we can make a real difference.

Look whatâs happening up in Sandpoint, Idaho: http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/19/sandpoint-innovators-solar-road-panels-remove/

And look what weâre doing up here in the PNW: http://www.kgw.com/news/BPA-battery-captures-the-breeze-193705111.html

Weâre making so much power with wind and hydroelectric, we need to figure out some ways to store it all. These might be helpful: http://www.gizmag.com/dual-carbon-fast-charging-battery/32121/

I guess what *I* donât understand is why you resist it so. You keep barking on about increased taxes and more government oversight, and I donât see anyone here saying that except from your side of the debate. How about starting with just accepting what is true, and then insisting your politicians act accordingly? 

This is not a left/right, conservative/liberal issue. Itâs become one because powerful corporate interests with a moneyed stake in creating doubt have made it one. Theyâve thrown billions of dollars at planting that little seed of doubt which enables people to pretend the science isnât âsettled,â so they donât need to really do anything.

Example: When Iâm working, I often have the television on, usually a news channel (no, not MSNBC). Iâve counted as many as *eight* ads per hour from fossil fuel companies, natural gas, coal and oil. The ads repeat their message over and over: American fuel for the future, plentiful and clean. These ads are propaganda, plain and simple. Why would these industries spend millions of dollars to publish ads during prime time television saying these things? And why do you uncritically believe them?

roberte has offered many substantive links to start your own exploration of these issues. They are a great start. There are many, many more. To these I would encourage you to watch both Gasland films by Josh Fox. Mr. Fox had no reason to make these films except as a response to what he learned would be the result of fracking on his own land. What he learned is truly horrifying. He's one guy who made a big, big difference. So can we all.

Lead, follow â or get out of the way.


----------



## watcher

I have one question for the GW crowd.

Is there ANY of the computer models out there which predict GW which when ran backwards ACCURATELY give you the KNOWN temps from times pass?


I have never seen one which does. Now think about this. I have a computer program which I say using the known data will predict the future value of stocks and I'm willing to sell it to you for $10,000,000. But when I put in the known data and have it 'postdict' the value of stocks in the past it is WAY off. Would you be willing to buy my program? If not why are you willing to "buy" the GW computer programs?


----------



## DEKE01

Roberte - these are the 14 symptoms one is in a cult (with my comments)

1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. (Al Gore)

2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. (hmmmm)

3. The group is preoccupied with making money. (carbon taxes)

4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. (no funding for doubter scientists and threads like this)

5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). (how many times are you gong to repeat the same links and 97% chants even when I have proven the 97% is wrong?)

6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). (It isn't enough that I have a small carbon footprint, there is an obsession that I must be converted to a believer)

7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members, for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity. (I'll let you figure out that one)

8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. (and here we are today)

9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). (Obama will use Exec Order's to accomplish his goals)

10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). (put people out of work, kill industries, tax people for unproven fixes, reduce the standard of living, all for an unproven fix to an unproven problem)

11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. (Look at your own scare tactics and words of impending doom)

12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group. (I'll give you a pass on this one)

13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. (and here we are today)

14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. (you get a pass on this one)

12 out of 14.


----------



## DEKE01

Raeven said:


> Hereâs the problem: If youâre right and weâre wrong, then no harm, no foul.
> *
> WRONG - tell it to out of work coal miners in dying towns when the main industry is killed off*
> 
> Where the science points us is very alarming indeed.
> 
> *There are members of the IPCC, which I have previously posted, who disagree with that.*
> 
> 
> And the worst thing is? I donât even think it requires that much change to address the problems. We need to shift our energy uses from fossil fuels to known, clean, renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Nobody has to give up driving their cars or using their computers. Not everyone has to recycle and compost (though it would be nice if we did).
> 
> *LOL - *
> 
> I believe the countries that take the leadership roles in addressing human-engineered climate change will be the winners, if winners there may still be. Weâve got some pretty good innovation happening in this country. If we get behind it, we can make a real difference.
> 
> *It is nice you have your belief. Where is the peer reviewed data to support it? *
> 
> 
> 
> Weâre making so much power with wind and hydroelectric, we need to figure out some ways to store it all.
> 
> *Yeah, right. And the enviro whack jobs are demanding hydro dams be torn down and windmills be shut down so they don't kill endangered birds. The US has maxed out its large scale hydro resources. I would love to see every new home built with PV, as well as tidal electric and lots of other neat ideas I've been reading about for 40 years but have yet to see proven in the marketplace. Again, not because I'm a believer in the carbon boogyman, rather because I hate dollars flowing to ME terrorist countries and orgs.
> *
> 
> I guess what *I* donât understand is why you resist it so. You keep barking on about increased taxes and more government oversight, and I donât see anyone here saying that except from your side of the debate.
> *
> Huh? The libs having been pushing carbon taxes for years.*
> 
> How about starting with just accepting what is true, and then insisting your politicians act accordingly?


*Exactly*


----------



## fishhead

We've got a local geologist who sends letters all over MN that pretty much parrot the oil industry talking points. Just recently he submitted a letter that claimed the green house effect of CO2 was untrue. I guess that is going to be the next oil industry talking point to confuse their supporters.


----------



## offthegrid

DEKE01 said:


> Roberte - these are the 14 symptoms one is in a cult (with my comments)
> 
> 1. The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. (Al Gore)
> 
> 2. The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members. (hmmmm)
> 
> 3. The group is preoccupied with making money. (carbon taxes)
> 
> 4. Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished. (no funding for doubter scientists and threads like this)
> 
> 5. Mind-numbing techniques (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, debilitating work routines) are used to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s). (how many times are you gong to repeat the same links and 97% chants even when I have proven the 97% is wrong?)
> 
> 6. The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel (for example: members must get permission from leaders to date, change jobs, get married; leaders may prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, how to discipline children, and so forth). (It isn't enough that I have a small carbon footprint, there is an obsession that I must be converted to a believer)
> 
> 7. The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members, for example: the leader is considered the Messiah or an avatar; the group and/or the leader has a special mission to save humanity. (I'll let you figure out that one)
> 
> 8. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society. (and here we are today)
> 
> 9. The group's leader is not accountable to any authorities (as are, for example, military commanders and ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream denominations). (Obama will use Exec Order's to accomplish his goals)
> 
> 10. The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group (for example: collecting money for bogus charities). (put people out of work, kill industries, tax people for unproven fixes, reduce the standard of living, all for an unproven fix to an unproven problem)
> 
> 11. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them. (Look at your own scare tactics and words of impending doom)
> 
> 12. Members' subservience to the group causes them to cut ties with family and friends, and to give up personal goals and activities that were of interest before joining the group. (I'll give you a pass on this one)
> 
> 13. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group. (and here we are today)
> 
> 14. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members. (you get a pass on this one)
> 
> 12 out of 14.


This is one of the funniest things I have read recently, but I don't think you meant it to be funny. 

Sounds a bit paranoid - the idea that supporters of global warming theories idolize Al Gore? Wasn't that a South Park episode once? And that Obama is the "leader" of the global warming activists?

I will be the first to admit that I have NOT read many scientific papers on climate change, as, I suspect most people have not (most people get their news about climate change from Fox News or memes on Facebook). However, the very idea that humans aren't contributing negatively to the climate is ridiculous - how could that even be possible, even if we desperately want to believe it? Of course we are. 

Has the earth experienced periods of warming and cooling in the past - yes. No one argues that. We may be experiencing a warming trend, sure. But there isn't a very big window of safe temperature change, and if humans are contributing - even a little - we're in big trouble. 

I made the unfortunate decision to watch this Ted talk some time ago http://grist.org/climate-change/climate-change-is-simple-we-do-something-or-were-screwed/ Too scary to want to think about.


----------



## Jim-mi

How dare you cast aspersions on our beloved head idiot algorp.......


----------



## Raeven

DEKE01 said:


> *It is nice you have your belief. Where is the peer reviewed data to support it? *


 Deke, I&#8217;m sorry, I&#8217;m not intending to slam you. I know you think you&#8217;re making big scores against the AGW crowd by pointing out that my beliefs aren&#8217;t peer-reviewed (Checkmate, AGWs!), but in truth, you&#8217;re only demonstrating how little you understand science or the scientific method. roberte gave you a neat little cheat sheet about how it works, but apparently you didn&#8217;t find it helpful.

This may surprise you, but I&#8217;m entitled to express my opinions. Hence the words, &#8220;I believe.&#8221; You can attribute to them whatever weight you choose. I haven&#8217;t made any representation that every single thought I express in this thread is backed up by science. I gave you a great big hint with those words, &#8220;I believe.&#8221; But you seem unable to draw the distinction. It makes me sad, because the inability to discern real science from mere opinion is a big part of the problem in having this &#8220;debate.&#8221;

Tell me, do you believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? Is the Earth a sphere? Do you trust that your GPS will work when you turn it on? Do you believe the medicines your doctor prescribes to treat an illness will cure your ills? If yes to any or all of these questions, then you unquestioningly trust in science. Why in those instances, but not in this? The methods to prove or disprove are exactly the same. And though we can&#8217;t &#8220;prove&#8221; gravity, we know it exists and it will act in ways we can predict. We can&#8217;t &#8220;prove&#8221; time, but the fact that your GPS works as it does shows that time does function as we theorize. 

Global warming science is no different. We can&#8217;t prove to an absolute certainty that this or that is going to happen on a certain day at a certain time &#8211; but the same rigorous testing required to reach reliable conclusions about gravity and time has been applied to global warming science. And where it&#8217;s headed is, truly, inescapable. And yes, alarming. But there&#8217;s nothing difficult or suspect about the basics of it.

So ok, you don&#8217;t want to believe the science. Maybe it&#8217;s easier to believe what&#8217;s in front of your eyes every single day. A quick selection over just the past month:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/25/states-running-out-of-water/9506821/

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83716&src=fb

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=83675&src=fb

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/serbia-bosnia-flooding-thousands-flee-river-sava

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-climate-chickens-20140504-story.html#ixzz30n6dT6ov&page=1

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/de...g-flooding-submerges-pensacola-florida-n93201

Things are changing, yeah?

Remember, we&#8217;re just at the very start of the consequences from climate change. And if we&#8217;re right and you&#8217;re wrong...? Just think about it, ok?


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ....
> ...even when I have proven the 97% is wrong?)
> ....


Citing a magazine article that attempted to equate a survey of people involved in the petroleum extraction business with data-driven research into published science papers is typical of the disinformation being spewed by 'skeptics'.

Such a false equivalency shows how little actual evidence the skeptical argument has. 

Again, no credible alternative hypotheses, no body of credible research.

The 'skeptics' have had a couple of centuries to come up with evidence. Maybe someone can tell us why there is no body of credible research supporting the claims being made by them.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YZ84pD895Q[/ame]


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> again you are attempting to make a claim that a few papers over a couple of centuries of research are equivalent to the thousands of papers supporting the IPCC conclusions.
> 
> *wrong. I'm saying lots of insiders say the processes, procedures, and conclusions are flawed. *
> 
> The science showing the causes of Anthropogenic Climate Change is unequivocal. Attempting to label it 'religion' or 'belief' is an attempt to make an equivalent to the opinions espoused by skeptics.
> 
> *You have a misunderstanding of science or the meaning of the word "unequivocal" or possibly both. *
> 
> IF there were data to support an alternative theory, it would have been published. And skeptics would be pointing to it.
> 
> *A statement without merit or foundation and assumes that all science is conducted free of political influence.*
> 
> But, we get Townhall forums, weazelzippers, WSJ editorials, opinion pieces.....
> 
> Not equivalent sources by a long shot.
> 
> *One wonders why you feel a need to misrepresent the content of those articles if you are so confident your side is correct.
> *
> 
> Now, the real question is why would a rational, intelligent, educated person attempt to make those two disparate types of literature seem to be equivalent in a scientific debate? It isn't rational, it is easy to see that the positions aren't equally supported by fact, and it is more an attempt to use a logical fallacy rather than educated, rational critical thinking.


yes, rational critical thinking is in short supply. If only your side would exercise critical thinking rather than blind faith.


----------



## DEKE01

Raeven said:


> Deke, Iâm sorry, Iâm not intending to slam you. I know you think youâre making big scores against the AGW crowd by pointing out that my beliefs arenât peer-reviewed (Checkmate, AGWs!), but in truth, youâre only demonstrating how little you understand science or the scientific method. roberte gave you a neat little cheat sheet about how it works, but apparently you didnât find it helpful.
> 
> *You are demonstrating a lack of understanding of my point. Read on.*
> 
> This may surprise you, but Iâm entitled to express my opinions. Hence the words, âI believe.â You can attribute to them whatever weight you choose. I havenât made any representation that every single thought I express in this thread is backed up by science. I gave you a great big hint with those words, âI believe.â But you seem unable to draw the distinction. It makes me sad, because the inability to discern real science from mere opinion is a big part of the problem in having this âdebate.â
> 
> *LOL - Opinions are fine, this forum is a place for opinions. However, you offer your opinion for an AGW fix which I reject as being opinion, not science, then you slam me for an inability to discern science from opinion. LOL - that's just too much. And exactly why I usually avoid these inane discussions. *
> 
> Tell me, do you believe the Earth revolves around the Sun? Is the Earth a sphere? Do you trust that your GPS will work when you turn it on? Do you believe the medicines your doctor prescribes to treat an illness will cure your ills? If yes to any or all of these questions, then you unquestioningly trust in science. Why in those instances, but not in this? The methods to prove or disprove are exactly the same. And though we canât âproveâ gravity, we know it exists and it will act in ways we can predict. We canât âproveâ time, but the fact that your GPS works as it does shows that time does function as we theorize.
> 
> *Again, you make me laugh with a basic logical fallacy, this one is known as an "Appeal to Authority". to prove your logic is fallacious, all I have to do is point out an instance of science being wrong, and to do that, I don't even have to leave the climate debate and the global cooling of the 1970s. *
> 
> Global warming science is no different. We canât prove to an absolute certainty that this or that is going to happen on a certain day at a certain time â but the same rigorous testing required to reach reliable conclusions about gravity and time has been applied to global warming science. And where itâs headed is, truly, inescapable. And yes, alarming. But thereâs nothing difficult or suspect about the basics of it.
> 
> *1000 earth scientists and engineers disagree with you as do many former IPCC scientists. Your side just can't get away from the fact that the 97% number is a lie. *
> 
> So ok, you donât want to believe the science. Maybe itâs easier to believe whatâs in front of your eyes every single day. A quick selection over just the past month:
> 
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/05/25/states-running-out-of-water/9506821/
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83716&src=fb
> 
> http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=83675&src=fb
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/18/serbia-bosnia-flooding-thousands-flee-river-sava
> 
> http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/05/12/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-collapse-is-under-way/
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-climate-chickens-20140504-story.html#ixzz30n6dT6ov&page=1
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/de...g-flooding-submerges-pensacola-florida-n93201
> 
> Things are changing, yeah?
> 
> Remember, weâre just at the very start of the consequences from climate change. And if weâre right and youâre wrong...? Just think about it, ok?


LOL - WOW! You're giving me weather?!? Every time it's cold the AGW believers say weather doesn't matter in the AGW debate and then every time its hot or there is a bad storm, the AGW believers say, "see, I told you so." Weather has been happening for a long time and even if you believe the IPCC temp data as fact, the change in temps is imperceptible to raw human senses. IPCC reports a less than 2F temp change since the early 20th century. You might be able to tell the difference in 2F from one bottle of your fave beverage to another, but not across ~100 years.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> yes, rational critical thinking is in short supply. If only your side would exercise critical thinking rather than blind faith.


Ahhh, more non-substantive rejoinders.....

For a topic rooted in science, you'd think that 'skeptics' would make a modicum of effort to bring forward something substantive to support their argument....



DEKE01 said:


> One wonders why you feel a need to misrepresent the content of those articles if you are so confident your side is correct.


Hmmm

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7090662-post95.html(your post) links to a 'skeptic' blog discussing a report updating (in 2010) a 2009 U. S. Senate Minority Report from Morano. Tell us where that is 'peer-reviewed'. Then tell us who those '1000' are; how many are working in the field of climate science? How many are actively publishing science papers in journals?

The StudentNewsDaily article (http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7090657-post94.html)starts (your post) with "A group of 15 scientists and meteorologists have put forward a scathing rebuttal...." without giving us any information about the qualifications of 12 of the 15. 

The Forbes (http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/7090652-post93.html)article (your post) describes a survey of members of APEGA; again, not scientists practicing and exhibiting expertise in the science of climate change.

So, basically; an article from a student newspaper (an article with incredibly slanted language more suited for an opinion page than a science report.) An article in a business magazine about a survey of members of a petroleum group. Not a group of scientists actually doing research into climate science. A blog /press release linking to a 3+ year old report that, again, has few (if any) comments from researchers in the field of climate science.


Yet, those paltry attempts of equating a survey of members of a petroleum focused organization with data-driven research of the papers written by climate science researchers, a list of people who Morano compiled (and one wonders why he hasn't updated it in 3+ years), a student newsletter are not evidence that negates:

97-98% of scientist WORKING in the field of climate science:

Expert credibility in climate change
William R. L. Anderegg ,et al

Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) *97&#8211;98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. *http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

Again, IF you have evidence to support an alternate hypothesis, bring it forward. 

No politics, not a survey. No ill-formed conspiracy theory. Data-driven conclusion.




IF there were a cohesive alternative theory, or even a combination of hypotheses ( Milankovich cycles, magnetic pole, conspiracy, undersea volcanoes, natural cycles, etc) that supports the observations, there would be papers showing that. However the research is in the 97% plus range supporting the simple statement "*Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system*."
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


----------



## roberte

Let's do a quick boil down of the issue:





























The science isn't that difficult to follow, there are ample resources readily and easily available:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/impacts/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."

IPCC 2013, SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf


----------



## roberte

And, 122 posts and 2400 + viewings, later, here's a link to the Third National Climate Assessment Report that started the thread:

http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac


IF there were issues about the science, then bring the science forward. If you don't like the mitigation or the adaptations that the science shows as becoming more necessary, bring forward cogent concerns.

But arguing whether it is '99% or '97%' in agreement really isn't an issue.

Neither is attempting to claim it is some conspiracy theory.

Nor is it beneficial to rehash old (we're too puny, co2 is a minor %, it's the sun, climategate, we're being shamed, it's the clouds, it's a population issue, etc, etc, etc) arguments that have been shown to be misleading, disinformation, disproven.


----------



## roberte

The dialogue should be about adaptation and mitigation. Both at a range from personal to global. The 1-3% aren't providing substantive (24 out of ~14000 papers) alternative hypotheses; nor are the debunked 'skeptic' arguments  worth much (certainly not 122 posts) discussion.

So, transitioning from fossil fuel to renewables - http://thebulletin.org/renewable-energy-transition-has-begun http://www.theguardian.com/environm...r/18/transition-tipping-point-revolution-doom

Moving on carbon capture and sequestation - http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ccs/

Moving from a transportation based food system - http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err97.aspx#.U4Sx5_k7uSo

Recycle rather than extract - http://storyofstuff.org/

Limits to growth -http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-03-05/stealing-back-the-commons-citizen-economics-beyond-capitalism http://www.rtcc.org/2014/05/27/climate-change-means-we-must-rewrite-economics-textbooks/

Distributed Generation Systems - http://www.academia.edu/446324/Distributed_Generation_Systems_A_New_Paradigm_for_Sustainable_Energy http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/distribgen/system/

I'm sure many here could add to the list.


----------



## Space Cowboy

Wow, everyone. The OP posts ONE post and disappears. Its called Troll bait and you all fell for it. 
As has been pointed out, Climate "change" (formerly Climate warming) is now a religion. It IS based more on faith than science. As another former NASA engineer/planetary scientist ( 2 papers published in Science), Climate "change" is ridiculous on several levels. The data set is so small, the error bars so large, any conclusions are meaningless. People throw around "big" numbers that sound scary. On a planetary scale, those numbers mean almost nothing. 
Please stop feeding the trolls.......
SC
(PS last post of mine on this subject)


----------



## farminghandyman

I felt these head lines from a few years ago were telling, 



> *Hackers 'expose global warming con': Sceptics claim that leaked emails reveal research centre massaged temperature data
> *
> Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-massaged-temperature-data.html#ixzz32wBTF0Fz





> *Climategate 2.0: New E-Mails Rock The Global Warming Debate*
> 
> 
> A new batch of 5,000 emails among scientists central to the assertion that humans are causing a global warming crisis were anonymously released to the public yesterday, igniting a new firestorm of controversy nearly two years to the day after similar emails ignited the Climategate scandal.
> Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political &#8220;cause&#8221; rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/


----------



## roberte

farminghandyman said:


> I felt these head lines from a few years ago were telling,


Yup, tempest in a teacup...

*Yet multiple inquiries, while calling for more openness in data sharing, found no evidence of scientific misconduct on the part of the involved scientists. And new scientific assessments and studies have re-affirmed the Earth is warming and human activities play a key role.*

In a seeming effort to take another swing at the integrity of climate science, a second crop of emails was anonymously released Tuesday, apparently from the same place as 2009: Britainâs University of East Anglia.

The ânewâ emails (not new in that they are from 2009 and earlier) - while trumpeted by some climate skeptics as âspectacularâ and draining life from the manmade global warming movement - *mean little substantively from a scientific standpoint, just like the set that preceded them.*

The climate skeptic blogosphere has been quick to cherry pick certain snippets from the emails they claim show dissension within the climate science ranks, perhaps to demonstrate scientists may express more doubt about their confidence in the science in private than they do in public.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...rming-science/2011/11/22/gIQArptGmN_blog.html


----------



## roberte

Space Cowboy said:


> ....
> Climate "change" is ridiculous on several levels. The data set is so small, the error bars so large, any conclusions are meaningless. People throw around "big" numbers that sound scary. On a planetary scale, those numbers mean almost nothing. ....


Sounds really sciencey; any chance of some actual data to support the claims?


----------



## Raeven

DEKE01 said:


> Again, you make me laugh with a basic logical fallacy, this one is known as an "Appeal to Authority". to prove your logic is fallacious, all I have to do is point out an instance of science being wrong, and to do that, I don't even have to leave the climate debate and the global cooling of the 1970s.


 Oh, the old âglobal coolingâ red herring. You need to update your information. This one was debunked ages ago:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/03/the-global-cooling-mole/

Incidentally, George Will isnât a scientist.

I, too, am familiar with logical fallacies. In order for âAppeal to Authorityâ to apply in the instance of our exchange, gravity and time would have to be false. I was simply pointing out that science always works the same, whether the method is applied to theories of gravity, time â and climate change.



DEKE01 said:


> 1000 earth scientists and engineers disagree with you as do many former IPCC scientists. Your side just can't get away from the fact that the 97% number is a lie.


 You keep *saying* that, but youâve offered no proof of it. The links you provided are not proof, as roberte has shown. I do understand itâs a very popular meme with AGW skeptics. That doesnât make it true. Similarly, you have offered no proof that the 97% is a lie. You just keep saying it, as if repeating this over and over will somehow make it so. Iâm sorry, but it doesnât. The numbers are what they are; the science is settled. I won't repost roberte's links, but if you look at them, it's there.



DEKE01 said:


> LOL - WOW! You're giving me weather?!? Every time it's cold the AGW believers say weather doesn't matter in the AGW debate and then every time its hot or there is a bad storm, the AGW believers say, "see, I told you so." Weather has been happening for a long time and even if you believe the IPCC temp data as fact, the change in temps is imperceptible to raw human senses. IPCC reports a less than 2F temp change since the early 20th century. You might be able to tell the difference in 2F from one bottle of your fave beverage to another, but not across ~100 years.


 I absolutely understand the difference between climate change and weather â as well as the huge impact the former is going to have on the latter. That you donât is, again, sadly demonstrated by your statement about 2F across 100 years.

First, 2F is inaccurate. The scientific community is referring to 2C, which translates into 3.6F. And youâre right â 3.6F is a silly low number *when weâre talking about the weather*. But when weâre talking about overall warming of the planet, thatâs another matter entirely. Thatâs climate change. And when applied to climate change, 3.6F is huge. I understand it doesnât *seem* like it would be, but it is. This is amply demonstrated by what weâve learned from ice core/coral core samples that date back hundreds of thousands of years and which tell the story of what happens on the planet when temperatures rise by even those small numbers. Not much hospitable to humans â or other life, either. (Except around volcanic vents deep in the ocean.)

Climate change is not weather. But it is certainly going to affect weather, and itâs affecting it now. Thatâs the point of the links I shared, though you failed to grasp their importance. Bosnia and Serbia got more rain in *3 days than they usually get in 3 months*. They characterized it as a thousand-year flood. But these extreme weather events are becoming more common, and they will continue to become more common â and more extreme â as the planet warms. If you donât understand the relationship between climate change and weather, then I better appreciate why youâre finding this discussion so annoying.

One article I cited was about scientists working to develop farm animals that will survive climate change. Why might they be doing that, I wonder? Donât you? Why bother, if it isnât happening?


----------



## jwal10

I really don't care what either side "believes". Until the righteous ones do their part, and live their religion, nothing changes except "we" get poorer and "they" get richer....and what do they do with all the money....live it up....doing exactly what "they" preach against. I live my belief, I do not argue or debate it. Same as religion. Kind of like wallowing with pigs, you get muddy and they love that you argue (play) with them. I am 58 years old, I have lived close to the land for all of it. "Things are not much worse now than then and many things are better now. Live and let live, BUT do your part before preaching and telling "us" what is good for me....James


----------



## jwal10

Troll??????????????????????????????Hasn't been back HMMMMMMMM

http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/members/alb5049/


----------



## DEKE01

Space Cowboy said:


> Wow, everyone. The OP posts ONE post and disappears. Its called Troll bait and you all fell for it.
> As has been pointed out, Climate "change" (formerly Climate warming) is now a religion. It IS based more on faith than science. As another former NASA engineer/planetary scientist ( 2 papers published in Science), Climate "change" is ridiculous on several levels. The data set is so small, the error bars so large, any conclusions are meaningless. People throw around "big" numbers that sound scary. On a planetary scale, those numbers mean almost nothing.
> Please stop feeding the trolls.......
> SC
> (PS last post of mine on this subject)


right you are.


----------



## roberte

And now at 131 with a flurry of excitement because the skeptics have found being derisive about the 'troll' seems better than attempting to bring science about the topic.

Killing the Messenger (Argumentum ad Hominem)...... (not that it wasn't the first time the logical fallacy was tried)

And no debate about the 3rd NCA.... 






























roberte said:


> And, 122 posts and 2400 + viewings, later, here's a link to the Third National Climate Assessment Report that started the thread:
> 
> http://www.globalchange.gov/ncadac
> 
> 
> IF there were issues about the science, then bring the science forward. If you don't like the mitigation or the adaptations that the science shows as becoming more necessary, bring forward cogent concerns.
> 
> But arguing whether it is '99% or '97%' in agreement really isn't an issue.
> 
> Neither is attempting to claim it is some conspiracy theory.
> 
> Nor is it beneficial to rehash old (we're too puny, co2 is a minor %, it's the sun, climategate, we're being shamed, it's the clouds, it's a population issue, etc, etc, etc) arguments that have been shown to be misleading, disinformation, disproven.


----------



## DEKE01

and the religious chant continues


----------



## wogglebug

Trip trap, trip trap.

How can one post support a troll's bridge?

Normally Australian's have common sense, but if the troll is truly from Australia then it must be one of the young and <STRIKE>soft-headed</STRIKE> tender ones who have been deliberately trained to NOT think or reason.


----------



## roberte

wogglebug said:


> Trip trap, trip trap.
> 
> How can one post support a troll's bridge?
> 
> Normally Australian's have common sense, but if the troll is truly from Australia then it must be one of the young and <STRIKE>soft-headed</STRIKE> tender ones who have been deliberately trained to NOT think or reason.



Argumentum ad hominem


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Argumentum ad hominem


I believe what a couple of folks are pointing out is that we argumentum ad nauseam to no effect on each other so it is pointless.


----------



## roberte

And this 'pointless' thread has had 2400+ views.

Of people seeing the science.


----------



## Raeven




----------



## ET1 SS

Raeven said:


>


If the topic were: "What can we all do to make the world better?"

You would have a lot more unified response from the public.

But to say that Gore's Nuclear-Winter has caused blah blah, you have a much more difficult debate.


----------



## watcher

roberte said:


> And now at 131 with a flurry of excitement because the skeptics have found being derisive about the 'troll' seems better than attempting to bring science about the topic.
> 
> Killing the Messenger (Argumentum ad Hominem)...... (not that it wasn't the first time the logical fallacy was tried)
> 
> And no debate about the 3rd NCA....


Again I ask where are the computer models when using the GW data give you ACCURATE and VERIFIABLE numbers from the past? 

Simple example. You add up a group of numbers then take that total and subtract the same group of number. If you don't come with zero (0) as the answer to your subtraction equation you have a problem somewhere.

If you were using a computer program to add your numbers would you trust it? Now you can yap all you want about how the current data predicts future events but if you can't use said data in reverse you have a major problem therefore how can you trust those programs?


----------



## SolarGary

watcher said:


> Again I ask where are the computer models when using the GW data give you ACCURATE and VERIFIABLE numbers from the past?
> 
> Simple example. You add up a group of numbers then take that total and subtract the same group of number. If you don't come with zero (0) as the answer to your subtraction equation you have a problem somewhere.
> 
> If you were using a computer program to add your numbers would you trust it? Now you can yap all you want about how the current data predicts future events but if you can't use said data in reverse you have a major problem therefore how can you trust those programs?


Hi,
When the IPCC report is formulated, they look at how well the models do when run with over the past and they pick the top 15 to use in the report. 
You can download the report and see exactly how they do it.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

The people who develop the models routinely run the models against past data -- how else would you verify them.

Gary


----------



## roberte

watcher said:


> ....
> 
> ....


??????????????????

Maybe you should take the models and show us (and the programmers and scientists) what is wrong with them.

Like specific examples.

Including the 'fixes' you claim they need.


----------



## roberte

SolarGary said:


> Hi,
> When the IPCC report is formulated, they look at how well the models do when run with over the past and they pick the top 15 to use in the report.
> You can download the report and see exactly how they do it.
> https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
> 
> The people who develop the models routinely run the models against past data -- how else would you verify them.
> 
> Gary


Well done, point to the science (actually, point, set, match); it shows the skeptic talking points for just what they are.... talking points with no substantive support.

A few more resources:

There is a pretty good High School level lesson plan @ http://cleanet.org/resources/43781.html or http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html# which includes an interactive slideshow that discusses how models are tested,

"To test model accuracy, scientists simulate past climate conditions. They then compare the model results to observed conditions. The observed average global change in temperature over the past century is relatively well-replicated by models."










Skeptical Science's page on Climate Models (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm) offers basic and intermediate levels of detail about reliability of models. 

Also see the WMO article ( http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/climate_models.php) for a good description of the evolution of climate models

http://www.wcrp-climate.org/index.php/unifying-themes/unifying-themes-modelling/modelling-wgcm goes into much more detail. As does chapter 8 in the IPCC report. There is also the IPCC page (http://www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/pages/gcm_guide.html) that discusses modeling.

Unfortunately, the depth of detail of even the interactive slideshow doesn't fit well with the soundbite mode of discourse. 

The skeptic meme of 'the models are wrong(inaccurate, invalid, too simple, depending on where the skeptic copy pastes from) is one of many that are being foisted off onto a certain portion of the populace by shear dint of 'repetition until it is believed'.


A pretty good example is shown in the 'Years of Living Dangerously' -ep 6 - "James Taylor of the Heartland Institute " making claims to politicians and then not being able to show supporting evidence.... (http://www.sho.com/sho/years-of-living-dangerously/season/1/episode/6#/index)

Now, I wonder if any of the skeptics on board here can point to something of substantive value supporting their opinion.

You know, something other than a survey of petroleum engineers, a student newsletter, a magazine editorial, an online petition anyone with a B.S. can sign (over 31k with something like .01% having documented proof of expertise in climate science)having done so, an attempt at a snappy rejoinder invoking Gore, etc.

I wonder if any skeptic can point to a resource that brings forth data that supports any of the long list of skeptical 'arguments' offered up at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage ....

But someone will probably claim that the above links are just another attempt


DEKE01 said:


> ... to shame me, bully me, or silence me, instead of presenting scientific evidence to show why the skeptic's points are wrong.


......


----------



## jwal10

roberte said:


> Argumentum ad hominem



Argumentum ad hominem. Take your own advice and live it, not preach it....James


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> ??????????????????
> 
> Maybe you should take the models and show us (and the programmers and scientists) what is wrong with them.
> 
> Like specific examples.
> 
> Including the 'fixes' you claim they need.


You demonstrate yet another logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof. You've repeatedly done it before by demanding others provide an alternative theory for GW. Just because I lack mechanical knowledge to repair a car does not mean that I don't know it is not working properly when it won't start. The mechanic does not get to insist the car is just fine and make me prove it is broken by showing him how to fix it. 

It is up to the model makers to produce a model that can be tested forward and back to produce accurate results. The doom and gloom predicted ~10 years has not shown to be accurate. If they can't predict 10 years into the future, 100 years is far more problematic.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> You demonstrate yet another logical fallacy called the Burden of Proof. You've repeatedly done it before by demanding others provide an alternative theory for GW.


Actually, watcher ( or you or someone who agrees with the comment)


watcher said:


> Again I ask where are the computer models when using the GW data give you ACCURATE and VERIFIABLE numbers from the past?
> ....


 needs to support the claim.

It's that 'You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts' issue.
I've posted multiple links to how the climate models are accurate, including watcher's specific complaint.

So, IF you (or someone who agrees with the comment or even the OP) has proof to support their claim, they need to do that in the interest of simple, basic academic rigor and truthfulness.

Otherwise, all we are doing is arguing about opinion; not the science.



DEKE01 said:


> Just because I lack mechanical knowledge to repair a car does not mean that I don't know it is not working properly when it won't start. The mechanic does not get to insist the car is just fine and make me prove it is broken by showing him how to fix it.


Poor analogy. More accurately would be for the mechanic to ask for the symptoms and he or she would not be remiss in expecting a description.

IF watcher has the expertise to see errors, then he or she should be quite capable of showing where the errors are; what runs of which model used in what paper gave results that do not meet his or her quality standards?

What we have is an empty claim that does not (until evidence proving it is brought forward) stand up to a modicum of scrutiny; let alone scientific rigor or honesty.





DEKE01 said:


> It is up to the model makers to produce a model that can be tested forward and back to produce accurate results. The doom and gloom predicted ~10 years has not shown to be accurate. If they can't predict 10 years into the future, 100 years is far more problematic.



Again, we have lots of evidence that they work fine. Show us proof of your claim.


----------



## DEKE01

Once again, a swing and a miss, in the entirety. I am not surprised you do not understand the logical fallacies and errors, however, I have no need or desire to take a second pass at trying to explain it.


----------



## wogglebug

roberte said:


> "To test model accuracy, scientists simulate past climate conditions. They then compare the model results to observed conditions. The observed average global change in temperature over the past century is relatively well-replicated by models."


Simulating past climate conditions is making up your own facts.

The correct methodology is to posit a process or mechanism, a postulate, then apply it to a set of proven data, and compare the result to another set of proven data.
ALL THIS WITHOUT introducing fudge and fiddle factors, adjustments and "scaling", "disregarding irrelevant factors", "discarding outliers", and similar ways of adjusting reality to fit the fiction, to make the process produce the facts you want.

THEN when you've got it working and producing the correct answer from, say, 1900 to 2000, THEN you apply exactly the same process to other RANDOM data points and ranges, say, 500 to 1500, or 850 to 1850, and compare the results. If it STILL works well, then you've got a decent theory, but it still isn't proven - it just has supporting evidence.

Unfortunately, these tools of the scientific method seem to be beyond the ken of people pursuing the religion of Anthrogenic Global Warming. They'd rather follow the money than follow the facts, unless of course a selection from the facts can be made to accidentally or deliberately coincide with their postulate de jour.


----------



## Rosco99

Not Science based but Observed

Al Gore observed that lying gets you what you want if repeated loud enough

AL an friends do not work but swap lies an sell carbon credits an make a lot of money:flame:

Poor people find it a lot harder to make money last to end of month but Science says that GW is true an they have to live with it.

Un-related but supports my point [ VA big wigs Lie an get big Bonuses :lonergr:]


That's why I don't Believe in GW


----------



## roberte

wogglebug said:


> Simulating past climate conditions is making up your own facts.
> ....


??????????????????

Maybe you should take the models and show us (and the programmers and scientists) what is wrong with them.

Like specific examples.

Including the 'fixes' you claim they need.

Unless you just did not understand the sentence, "To test model accuracy, scientists simulate past climate conditions. They then compare the model results to observed conditions. The observed average global change in temperature over the past century is relatively well-replicated by models."


----------



## roberte

It sure is surprising how much expertise there is on this forum. So many people with multiple Ph.Ds worth of knowledge. So much knowledge that they don't even need to cite a single resource to support the claims.

It's a wonder none have published any of their thoughts in a science journal as that paper would just turn the whole field - two centuries of research by thousands of researchers from all over the world, checking each others' work - upside down.

/sarc


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> It sure is surprising how much expertise there is on this forum. So many people with multiple Ph.Ds worth of knowledge. So much knowledge that they don't even need to cite a single resource to support the claims.
> 
> /sarc


You just made another logical fallacy known as an Appeal to Ridicule. 

A brief history of the PhD
>>>
The doctoral degree originated in the ninth century schools of the Muslim world before spreading to European universities. Originally awarded in the professions of law, medicine and theology, the Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) became the designation for doctoral degrees in disciplines outside of these fields. The first Ph.D. was awarded in Paris in 1150, but it was the early 1800s before the degree gained its contemporary status as the highest academic honor.
>>>

As there was scientific advancement prior to the existence of the PhD, a PhD is not required to advance science, as your post implies.

You're making this entertaining. Please don't stop.


----------



## Gray Wolf

Hey! 
I KNOW that climate change is NOT man made. 
And I'm a college dropout. 
But I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express once....

We MAY be helping change along, but we are sure as heck not the only cause.

Poor choice of words in the orignal question?


----------



## watcher

roberte said:


> ??????????????????
> 
> Maybe you should take the models and show us (and the programmers and scientists) what is wrong with them.


I'd love to. One of my favorite things is beta testing programs trying to see if they are bullet proof or if you can crash them. 




roberte said:


> Like specific examples.
> 
> Including the 'fixes' you claim they need.


I once "fixed" a physics lab experiment after I was done. I knew the answer, 60Hz, but my data didn't support that. So buried in the write up I simply took my data set it up in the equation then multiplied by 0 (zero) and added 60. Boom I got the correct answer and no one looked hard enough at the actual math so I got an A for it.

I also wrote a program one time where if you typed in a specific name (the one my teacher used when he tested the programs) there was no way you could win the game. Yet if you typed in my name you were sure to win 95% of the time. 

But seeing as how it seems the GW people already know how to skew data I'm not sure I could "improve" their work.


----------



## roberte

No need to "appeal to ridicule"; that's being done by a complete lack of data to support the various 'skeptic' position claims being bandied about in this thread (and the vast majority of threads on the various 'skeptic' blogs).


----------



## Raeven

I often think that threads and the posts contained therein are best left to stand or fall on their own merit. Folks can read for themselves and decide what makes most sense to them. I'm comfortable with taking that approach in this thread at this point.


----------



## DEKE01

Raeven said:


> I often think that threads and the posts contained therein are best left to stand or fall on their own merit. Folks can read for themselves and decide what makes most sense to them. I'm comfortable with taking that approach in this thread at this point.


As am I, as of about 50 posts ago.


----------



## Paumon

I guess I really should have posted this here right at the outset instead of in GC.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cli...ows-pockets-of-warming-around-world-1.2648526


----------



## DEKE01

And we have another entrant in the category of argumentum repetendo because if it is said often and with enthusiasm, it must be true. :spinsmiley:


----------



## Jim-mi

It is like beating your head against a brick wall........
It feels so good when you stop........
Arguing with those GW zealots is an act of futility . . . . . .
What are the chances of making them "see the light" . . .slim to none

I have plenty to do around the homestead . . . .and reeducating a ********** is not one of those items.

I said way up top this thread belongs in the Politics section . . and NOT AE

This morning the wind is powering my home and puter..........


----------



## Paumon

> I said way up top this thread belongs in the Politics section . . and NOT AE


Maybe, maybe not. While it's true the OP's _anthropogenic_ premise may have been out of place for this particular forum, the topic of climate change itself and its future consequences is appropriate for this forum as it is relevant to alternative energy. Because of regional climate changes some of the things that people are already doing now or planning for energy alternatives will no longer be possible in their locations in the near future. That being the case, if people are going to stay in those locations it will be necessary for them to come up with other options and be prepared to adjust to whatever the vagaries of changing climate will allow. It doesn't hurt to discuss other energy options as they pertain to climate change - but it probably would be better if an entirely new topic was started about it and leave out the whole question of whether or not climate change is anthropogenic.


----------



## Alaska

Barring too many more Fukijimas, Man kind just will not stand a chance at beating mother nature in this game. Research super Volcanoes. We dont stand a chance. Enjoy the ride.
Global warming POO POO
Those were some pretty charts though


----------



## ET1 SS

Alaska said:


> Barring too many more Fukijimas, Man kind just will not stand a chance at beating mother nature in this game. Research super Volcanoes. We dont stand a chance. Enjoy the ride.
> Global warming POO POO
> Those were some pretty charts though


The earth's previous intelligent species was not able to out-last mother nature; what does that say about us?

Neither science nor the Bible tells us how many previous intelligent species there have been on earth. We are only told that we have not been the first.

Maybe they were wiped out by Climate Change, or by Global Warming, or by Nuclear Winter, at this junction we simply do not know. We have been told to re-fill the planet, so here we are.


----------



## DEKE01

ET1 SS said:


> The earth's previous intelligent species was not able to out-last mother nature; what does that say about us?
> 
> Neither science nor the Bible tells us how many previous intelligent species there have been on earth. We are only told that we have not been the first.
> 
> Maybe they were wiped out by Climate Change, or by Global Warming, or by Nuclear Winter, at this junction we simply do not know. We have been told to re-fill the planet, so here we are.


HUH?

care to share more about these previous intelligent species? Bible citations? Scientific citations?


----------



## ET1 SS

DEKE01 said:


> HUH?
> 
> care to share more about these previous intelligent species? Bible citations? Scientific citations?


Genesis 1:28 tells man to multiply and re-fill the earth.

We are never told what intelligent species had been here before humans.

Science says that there was a day when 'dinosaurs' were the dominant species. But most of them were wiped out suddenly, only a few categories of them have survived.


----------



## DEKE01

ET1 SS said:


> Genesis 1:28 tells man to multiply and re-fill the earth.
> 
> We are never told what intelligent species had been here before humans.
> 
> Science says that there was a day when 'dinosaurs' were the dominant species. But most of them were wiped out suddenly, only a few categories of them have survived.


Now that I was able to find. The link gives lots of Bible versions of Gen 1:28 http://biblehub.com/genesis/1-28.htm

They all say "fill" the earth or "replenish" the earth. Never "re-fill". I know that today replenish means re-fill but in the days of King James, it meant simply to fill. Science does say that dinosaurs were dominant and there is some evidence some dinos were much more intelligent than your average gator, but there is no serious evidence they were an "intelligent species" within the context of an ability to construct large scale civilizations, permanent structures, written language, etc.


----------



## farminghandyman

Since we have beat the Global Warming horse nearly to death, (it may rear up a few more times),

why not start a religious debate on *Creation *and the fine points.

and or *Creation vs. Evolution*, 

I bet we can get a few more pages of lively debate out of that,

If I was a moderator I would have closed this thread a long time ago,


----------



## roberte

A few words on why it is important to make sure the science is readily available and to show how it counters the wide range of fallacious talking points presented here and elsewhere:

"Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.

Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. *However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules*. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so."

Oxford Journals - European Journal of Public Health Volume 19, Issue 1Pp. 2-4.
Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee
http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full


----------



## Gray Wolf

I happen to think that the debate is pointless. 

The climate is changing. Ok. Now what?

Just how do you propose, in 100 years or 1,000 years, or..... to prove that the cause was man - or not? Good luck. Will it have mattered?

If somebody builds a giant thing to make it colder, should it be turned on?
If somebody builds a giant thing to make it warmer, should it be turned on?
We better have both machines if we are brave enough to turn one of them on.

Do we really know as much as we think we do?


----------



## Jim-mi

Boy, somebody sure is full of them selves......

Debating with a troll like that is point less..........

Move on nothing to see here . . . . . Ma Nature is just doing as she sees fit . . . .Same as she has for almost ever.....


----------



## wogglebug

Just to put this quote in correct context, in this context a "denialist" is someone who denies the proven fact that climates drift and weather changes continually, naturally, over all the timeframes of millenia, centuries, decades, and even years. We don't need to assume that all-conquering omnipotent man can casually, even accidentally and ignorantly trump, conquer and overcome what "weak, powerless, impotent" Nature, or even insentient dispassionate Nature, does for herself. 

In other words, quoting the omniscient Professor Hasenpfeffer and the authority of the all-knowing Algore Docks, prophet  of the Doleur deity whose religion is Aglow (but not very bright),
 *"What a maroon!"*​


roberte said:


> A few words on why it is important to make sure the science is readily available and to show how it counters the wide range of fallacious talking points presented here and elsewhere:


​


roberte said:


> "Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.
> 
> Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. *However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules*. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so."
> 
> Oxford Journals - European Journal of Public Health Volume 19, Issue 1Pp. 2-4.
> Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
> Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee
> http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> A few words on why it is important to make sure the science is readily available and to show how it counters the wide range of fallacious talking points presented here and elsewhere:
> 
> "Denialists are driven by a range of motivations. For some it is greed, lured by the corporate largesse of the oil and tobacco industries. For others it is ideology or faith, causing them to reject anything incompatible with their fundamental beliefs. Finally there is eccentricity and idiosyncrasy, sometimes encouraged by the celebrity status conferred on the maverick by the media.
> 
> Whatever the motivation, it is important to recognize denialism when confronted with it. The normal academic response to an opposing argument is to engage with it, testing the strengths and weaknesses of the differing views, in the expectations that the truth will emerge through a process of debate. *However, this requires that both parties obey certain ground rules, such as a willingness to look at the evidence as a whole, to reject deliberate distortions and to accept principles of logic. A meaningful discourse is impossible when one party rejects these rules*. Yet it would be wrong to prevent the denialists having a voice. Instead, we argue, it is necessary to shift the debate from the subject under consideration, instead exposing to public scrutiny the tactics they employ and identifying them publicly for what they are. An understanding of the five tactics listed above provides a useful framework for doing so."
> 
> Oxford Journals - European Journal of Public Health Volume 19, Issue 1Pp. 2-4.
> Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?
> Pascal Diethelm and Martin McKee
> http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full


denialism and close mindedness works both ways. have you looked at all the evidence objectively? I think not, because you would have to look at and understand raw data. You simply parrot IPCC info without questioning it. Denying that AGW is loaded with political agenda, political pressure, biased political funding, is living in fantasy land. Note, admitting to the political bias does not mean AGW is not true. I understand that, but sadly most believers do not as has been demonstrated here. 

And thanks for proving my point about the skeptic bashing, Your first parag proves that. It attempts to marginalize skeptics by casting them as dupes or goofs, instead of addressing the real concerns. If you and the believers were confident of the science, there would not be any need to create strawmen. 

I'll believe AGW is for real when IPCC scientists quit rejecting IPCC conclusions; when the people who have trained and worked all their lives in the field quit having doubts, and when the AGW crowd stops repeating lies and deceptions such as the 97% number. It would also be nice to see climate predictions (no more snow in England, more and stronger hurricanes, etc) which are not proven wrong. Claiming the models work when they are so obviously wrong weakens your side considerably.

Roberte, you may now re-re-re-re-repost all the same links again. And how about some charts and graphs. Why don't you ever post anything like that?


----------



## 12vman

This round blue rock has been warming up since the glaciers started melting and that was long before us silly humans came into the picture..


----------



## roberte

watcher said:


> I'd love to. One of my favorite things is beta testing programs trying to see if they are bullet proof or if you can crash them.
> ....
> ... I'm not sure I could "improve" their work.


 Anecdotal 'evidence'...... and not on topic.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ....
> 
> Roberte, you may now re-re-re-re-repost all the same links again. And how about some charts and graphs. Why don't you ever post anything like that?



And 173 posts and we're still waiting for substantive data supporting any skeptic meme.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ....
> I'll believe AGW is for real when IPCC scientists quit rejecting IPCC conclusions;


Who, where, when? Where are the papers?






DEKE01 said:


> and when the AGW crowd stops repeating lies and deceptions such as the 97% number.


....
[/QUOTE]

Who, where, when? Where are the papers?



Evidence? Or are we to just assume there is some validity to the claims?


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Who, where, when? Where are the papers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....


Who, where, when? Where are the papers?



Evidence? Or are we to just assume there is some validity to the claims?[/QUOTE]

already posted the links


----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> And 173 posts and we're still waiting for substantive data supporting any skeptic meme.


who is to fund the creation of this paper?


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> ....
> already posted the links


Here are some of the links showing the science, the level of consensus, and data disproving skeptic memes that I've already posted. Not too hard to do.

Expert credibility in climate change

" Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) *97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC* outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) *the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.*" http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 (my bolding)










http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage

http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html










http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/

What You Can Do about Global Warming
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/what_you_can_do/

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, ad the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"

"Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3)."

"Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5)."

"Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."

IPCC 2013, SPM
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf











Regarding the meme about changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change:

"Its first use was in* a 1975 Science *article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

There's a few more, but these cover the gist of it.

Now, I wonder if someone could post a set of links to the best data supporting the 'skeptic' positions?


Or what excuses will be proffered for not doing so ...


----------



## longshot38

i've been following the whole climate change/global warming/global cooling/coming ice age etc. ad nasium since i was a kid. 

is the climate changing. yes

has the climate changed in the past, sometimes rapidly. yes

will it happen again in the future. yes

wanna know somewhere the climate doesn't change? Mars.

we live on a living planet it will change, it has changed, and will in the future.

are we the main driver of the current "the sky is falling" hysteria, no. 

the main driver of climate on the planet Earth is the same source of life and energy the Sun, Sol our star it is the anchor of our solar system and it is what makes life, including ours, possible on this world.


----------



## longshot38

roberte said:


> Here are some of the links showing the science, the level of consensus, and data disproving skeptic memes that I've already posted. Not too hard to do.
> 
> Expert credibility in climate change
> 
> " Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) *97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC* outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) *the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.*" http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107 (my bolding)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=percentage
> 
> http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/scientific-consensus-on.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/
> 
> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm
> 
> http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/
> 
> What You Can Do about Global Warming
> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/what_you_can_do/
> 
> "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, ad the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased"
> 
> "Over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3)."
> 
> "Total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system.
> The largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in the atmospheric
> concentration of CO2 since 1750 (see Figure SPM.5)."
> 
> "Human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."
> 
> IPCC 2013, SPM
> http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding the meme about changing the name from Global Warming to Climate Change:
> 
> "Its first use was in* a 1975 Science *article by geochemist Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory: "Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?""
> http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
> 
> There's a few more, but these cover the gist of it.
> 
> Now, I wonder if someone could post a set of links to the best data supporting the 'skeptic' positions?
> 
> 
> Or what excuses will be proffered for not doing so ...


im a student of history, i recall learning about a time when science was settled and 99.9999999999999 percent of knowledge was as a consensus that the Earth was flat, & the Sun and planets revolved around the Earth. One person said different, one scientist dared to say different and he was persecuted by those who "knew" yet, here we are, on a round planet, revolving around the sun, and they knew and it was all "peer" reviewed.

makes you think maybe there was a lot of kool aid at that meeting or a lot of money in grants available.


----------



## DEKE01

Longshot - likewise, I recently watched a show in History channel, I think, about Nazi religion. One of the things they believed and needed to find proof of was that Aryans were superior to Jews. So when Einstein developed his theory of relativity, the Nazi gov't commissioned a non-Jew scientist to find an alternative scientific explanation for creation/big bang. He came up with one, and others back him up. Follow the money, follow the gov't pressure, and you get a science paper saying what was desired, not what is current accepted science. 

I'm not comparing the UN or US to Nazi Germany or AL Gore to Hitler in any way, so all the knee jerkers can forget about that right now. The only comparison I'm making is money and gov't power can skew science, at least for a while.


----------



## 1shotwade

This is getting to be like arguing with a fool! Bystanders can't tell which is which! I can't!


Wade


----------



## roberte

Eratosthenes circa 250 BCE not only knew that Earth was spherical, he was pretty accurate in determining the circumference.

And both the Nazi example and the unmentioned execrable Communist Russian biology fallacy both show that real science works. Both attempts were shown to be false through research. 

And basically, you are using a piece of high technology, created by science, to attempt to prove science doesn't work.....


----------



## roberte




----------



## roberte




----------



## DEKE01

roberte said:


> Both attempts were shown to be false through research.


eventually.


----------



## roberte

DEKE01 said:


> eventually.


Yup, less than a dozen years... and in both cases (Nazi and Communist) neither were mainstream scientific thought except in the particular country being influenced politically. Heck, even Columbus used the Greek science as opposed to the thinking influenced by religion at the time.

So the examples fail to support the contention.

The science supporting manmade co2 causing climate change goes back two centuries.

The various skeptic memes have had that long to come up with data to suuport any of dozens of alternative theories...

And they haven't.

But we do get conspiracy theories, cherry picking, political influence, .....

But no science.


----------



## roberte




----------



## DEKE01

why didn't you post that graph before? Now I see. I understand completely now. 

I'll see you in 200 years as we swim thru the streets of the former NYC. But really, I'm flattered. I've never had someone so obsessed with me before. You do realize I'm happily married?


----------



## roberte

Raeven said:


> I often think that threads and the posts contained therein are best left to stand or fall on their own merit.
> ...













Maybe someday someone will post some science to support the snark and evasion and various skeptic memes.....


----------



## longshot38

none so sure as a true believer. i guess my friend was right, never argue with fools they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience and "true" science...... Done.


----------



## DEKE01

97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

In their own words, the scientists who are part of the 97% deny that the 97% number is accurate. Some reject AGW entirely, some are neutral. These are climate scientists who remain skeptics. One published 112 papers that were not included in the survey and 111 of those were neutral on AGW. 

The 97% number is a lie but I have no doubt that we shall soon see another repetition of the 97% pie chart because a lie told often is a lie that the ignorant masses will believe.


----------



## DEKE01

PopularTechnology.net claims to have 1350 peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW. Here's one of them http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v10/n1/p69-82/

The climate scientist author, who was included in the 97% but says that he is a skeptic and should not be counted as pat of the 97% (further proof the 97% claim is a lie) has this to say about his paper and AGW

_Over the course of the past 2 decades, I have analyzed a number of natural phenomena that reveal how Earth's near-surface air temperature responds to surface radiative perturbations. *These studies all suggest that a 300 to 600 ppm doubling of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration could raise the planet's mean surface air temperature by only about 0.4Â°C. Even this modicum of warming may never be realized, however, for it could be negated by a number of planetary cooling forces that are intensified by warmer temperatures and by the strengthening of biological processes that are enhanced by the same rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration *that drives the warming. Several of these cooling forces have individually been estimated to be of equivalent magnitude, but of opposite sign, to the typically predicted greenhouse effect of a doubling of the air's CO2 content, which suggests to me that little net temperature change will ultimately result from the ongoing buildup of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere. *Consequently, I am skeptical of the predictions of significant CO2-induced global warming that are being made by state-of-the-art climate models and believe that much more work on a wide variety of research fronts will be required to properly resolve the issue.* _

So here's a scientist who "believers" say does not exist and who makes the same sort of claims that "deniers" make.


----------



## roberte

Again, a 'skeptic' has attempted to use one example in an effort to dismiss (ala Dr. Popper) the entirety of centuries of research covered throughout the globe by thousands of scientists actively working in the field.

One 15 year old paper that actually fit, at the low end at the time, into range of sensitivity. 


Dr. Tol's work has been well discussed in the blogs and press; you'll find ample resources to see that, while he is a darling of the 'skeptic' set, his work basically claims that the 97% should be 91%. And there is ample evidence (and a small problem of irreducible results) that his calculations are inaccurate. He has had to publish two (2) sets of corrections already.

So, if you are trying to figure which side of the fence you are on, there is the scientific research which has been compiled into the various IPCC reports that show a continuous strengthening of the position that we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates and are pushing our ecosystem toward tipping (irreversible) points.

This is research that virtually every nation, state, county, city, corporation uses to formulate policy. Food policy, building code, budget, health facilities, construction, military, and business.

Or you can look for 'information' amongst the blogs and editorials and business magazines or watch the TV ads by fossil fuel corps.


----------



## roberte

Interesting Op-Ed by a conservative:

*Who are the 'alarmists' here? Real conservatives value evidence
*
By Barry Bickmore
As the scientific case for human-caused climate change becomes even more compelling, it would be nice if my fellow conservatives would maintain some credibility so that any solutions eventually adopted reflect our vales as closely as possible.
As the scientific case for human-caused climate change becomes even more compelling, it would be nice if my fellow political conservatives would try to maintain some credibility about this issue, so that any solutions eventually adopted reflect our values as closely as possible. 
...
....
...
The real concern is the rapidity of the projected change, some 50-100 times as fast as the similarly large warming that brought us out of the last ice age. Rapid, sustained change makes adaptation very difficult, even for humans.

So who is being &#8220;hysterical&#8221; and &#8220;alarmist?&#8221; On one hand, we have people using all the best scientific, political and economic analyses &#8212; complete with estimates of uncertainty and risk &#8212; to come up with recommendations on how to solve a pressing problem in the most cost-effective manner. On the other hand, we have self-proclaimed &#8220;conservatives,&#8221; supposed champions of personal responsibility, neglecting to obtain even a cursory familiarity with the best scholarship on the topic, blaming our inaction on what they assume (without evidence) China will do, extolling the unlimited capacity of humans to solve problems while excusing the present generation from even trying, and shrieking overwrought, nonsensical warnings about what serious climate action will cost.

Some real conservatives, like former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-SC, have proposed excellent, minimally invasive strategies for dealing with climate change, such as a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but we have little chance of these policies being adopted if they continue to be overshadowed by intellectually and morally bankrupt rhetoric.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...s-here-Real-conservatives-value-evidence.html


----------



## Gray Wolf

Could I suggest a slight change in the topic since many forums are caught up in this same debate that won't be unarguably answered until after we are all long gone.

"Should the climate be changing - for whatever reason - how is your personal life changing and are your homesteading plans affected?"


----------



## roberte

&#8220;There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct.&#8221;

These are the words of economist and Global Warming Policy Foundation advisor Richard Tol in a new paper published in Energy Policy. Despite accepting that the expert consensus on human-caused global warming is real and correct, Tol has nevertheless spent the past year trying to critique the study my colleagues and I published last year, finding a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed climate literature.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...accidentally-confirm-global-warming-consensus


----------



## badlander

Whether it is man made or natural occurring, I have yet to see anyone ask this simple question.

What are you willing to give up to change what is happening?

Are you willing to stop driving the auto, truck, motorcycle, or scooter that you are using for transportation and go back to a horse drawn conveyance? 

Are you willing to eliminate the rail system that is used for transporting consumer goods, people and yes, coal to power plants?

Are you willing to give up electricity and go off grid entirely? No lights, no electric stoves, no gas stoves, no modern conveniences whatsoever? No Internet? No newspapers, magazines or books? No kerosene? No fires, because hey, you cannot put any more wood smoke into the atmosphere.

Stop and think what it takes to manufacture all the things that we take for granted today. Even the clothes on our backs take manufacturing to produce the cloth and the manufacturing companies need electricity. The electricity comes from where? Goal generated power plants for the most part.

So while everyone is pointing fingers and arguing po-TAY-toe, po-TAA-toe, nobody is really coming up with any solutions to the problem. 

As the world population grows so does its demand for manufacturing, transportation and electricity.

So what do you all propose? Lowering the world population through genocide? There are some cultures that are trying to do just that, but not to lessen mankind's carbon footprint.

Look around your house and think about what it takes to make the TVs you watch, the groceries you buy at the local Krogers and the gas you put in your car.

IF mankind has created global weather change, what do you think the solution is? Is there a solution?

Without electricity. and with the exception of nuclear power plants and hydro-electric plants, most of our power comes from goal generated power plants, our civilization comes to a stand still.

If mankind has created climate change, it is from his and her own greed for the newest and most power thirsty gadgets that money can buy.

I seriously doubt if anyone is willing to go back to the stone age at this point to fix the problem.


----------



## roberte

badlander said:


> ....
> 
> I seriously doubt if anyone is willing to go back to the stone age at this point to fix the problem.


And I seriously doubt that there is any evidence to support that claim. But I'd be quite happy to read it if it is posted / linked to.


----------



## Raeven

badlander said:


> Whether it is man made or natural occurring, I have yet to see anyone ask this simple question.
> 
> What are you willing to give up to change what is happening?
> 
> Are you willing to stop driving the auto, truck, motorcycle, or scooter that you are using for transportation and go back to a horse drawn conveyance?
> 
> Are you willing to eliminate the rail system that is used for transporting consumer goods, people and yes, coal to power plants?
> 
> Are you willing to give up electricity and go off grid entirely? No lights, no electric stoves, no gas stoves, no modern conveniences whatsoever? No Internet? No newspapers, magazines or books? No kerosene? No fires, because hey, you cannot put any more wood smoke into the atmosphere.
> 
> Stop and think what it takes to manufacture all the things that we take for granted today. Even the clothes on our backs take manufacturing to produce the cloth and the manufacturing companies need electricity. The electricity comes from where? Goal generated power plants for the most part.
> 
> So while everyone is pointing fingers and arguing po-TAY-toe, po-TAA-toe, nobody is really coming up with any solutions to the problem.
> 
> As the world population grows so does its demand for manufacturing, transportation and electricity.
> 
> So what do you all propose? Lowering the world population through genocide? There are some cultures that are trying to do just that, but not to lessen mankind's carbon footprint.
> 
> Look around your house and think about what it takes to make the TVs you watch, the groceries you buy at the local Krogers and the gas you put in your car.
> 
> IF mankind has created global weather change, what do you think the solution is? Is there a solution?
> 
> Without electricity. and with the exception of nuclear power plants and hydro-electric plants, most of our power comes from goal generated power plants, our civilization comes to a stand still.
> 
> If mankind has created climate change, it is from his and her own greed for the newest and most power thirsty gadgets that money can buy.
> 
> I seriously doubt if anyone is willing to go back to the stone age at this point to fix the problem.


badlander, well done. Now THAT is a useful post!

You're right. Coal, natural gas and oil -- these are so hugely entrenched in our "civilization," and it will be an Herculean task to make a switch. No one has implied or said otherwise. It's no good buying an electric car if you charge it with electricity from your local coal-fired power plant. But does that mean we shouldn't try? We're pretty amazing, we humans, when it comes to problem-solving. But first, you've got to identify the problem.

I've frequently heard people tell me we shouldn't support wind energy because wind can confuse/hurt birds. Now, I'm not discounting the importance of birds, and we should continue to develop passive renewable resources of energy that harm nothing. But really? Dead birds against human extinction? Let's use the wind for awhile, as we work toward even better solutions -- isn't that a better approach?

Similarly, I've had many people say we shouldn't give up coal, natural gas or oil because, you know, jobs. I'm sorry, but if I suspected the job I was doing meant my grandchild was going to die from global warming, I'd be finding another line of work. And I am NOT saying these are easy choices. Clearly, they are not. But if we work toward creating new jobs through new technologies... doesn't that mean everyone can stay employed AND do better for our future generations?

I disagree with your all-or-nothing, black-or-white choices, but fundamentally, you're spot on with the questions. I don't think people have to give up everything -- but they've got to start doing SOMETHING. Good grief, I know people who still don't even recycle! I've been doing it for more than 30 years! People don't seem to want to do ANYTHING, and that simply astonishes me.

- Change your stupid light bulbs. It makes a difference.

- Recycle and reuse everything you can. It makes a difference.

- Combine your errands and drive less. Be mindful of your fuel consumption. It makes a difference.

- Unplug or use a master control outlet to shut down power when not in use. It makes a difference.

- Compost everything you can. It makes a difference.

- Adjust your thermostats a little. It makes a difference.

- Buy food and other items local as much as you can. It makes a difference.

- Most of all, insist that those who govern put their weight behind good policies. Get angry. Make your voice heard. It makes a difference!

Just do SOMETHING! Be MINDFUL. If everyone did, it would help a lot. 

There are some amazing technologies heading our way. We need to get behind them and insist that they be supported.

What about a vehicle that can be charged through solar electricity that was generated through our road system? No need for horse-drawn carriages, just a better technology?

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/19/sandpoint-innovators-solar-road-panels-remove/

What about batteries that charge 20 times faster than Li-ion battery, and are environmentally friendly?

http://www.gizmag.com/dual-carbon-fast-charging-battery/32121/

These are technologies that are happening NOW.

Why does world population need to be reduced through genocide (it already is, but I'm guessing that's not your point)? Why can't we voluntarily reduce our population through attrition? Choose to stop having so many children? Isn't that a choice we can make?

Just... start. Do SOMETHING. Is that really asking too much?


----------



## DEKE01

1350 peer reviewed papers, which Roberte say do not exist, questioning AGW or that if AGW is occurring that is will create the chicken little crises such as have been repeated in this thread. 

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html


----------



## badlander

So, Roberte, my question was simple. Other than posting links and table pounding proof one way or another. Other than arguing the point, WHAT is your solution. Raeven got my point and offered some very sound suggestions about what everyone should be doing to help. Individuals if motivated can make a difference. The challenge is convincing the masses that they need to pitch in and help, and sorry, I cannot see that happening.

I'm not going to post any links to this that or the other. 

The way things are being argued here reminds me of two people I used to work with. One was Baptist, the other was Islamic. One night I observed them arguing about which religion was right.The Baptist had their Holy Bible open and was pounding on the table claiming her religion was right. The Islamic was waving his Koran under her nose arguing that his religion was right. Each thought they were right and wouldn't give an inch. 

I shook my head and walked away......like I am doing now.


----------



## DEKE01

badlander said:


> So, Roberte, my question was simple. Other than posting links and table pounding proof one way or another. Other than arguing the point, WHAT is your solution. Raeven got my point and offered some very sound suggestions about what everyone should be doing to help. Individuals if motivated can make a difference. The challenge is convincing the masses that they need to pitch in and help, and sorry, I cannot see that happening.
> 
> I'm not going to post any links to this that or the other.
> 
> The way things are being argued here reminds me of two people I used to work with. One was Baptist, the other was Islamic. One night I observed them arguing about which religion was right.The Baptist had their Holy Bible open and was pounding on the table claiming her religion was right. The Islamic was waving his Koran under her nose arguing that his religion was right. Each thought they were right and wouldn't give an inch.
> 
> I shook my head and walked away......like I am doing now.


If you are referring to me, nope. I'm a complete skeptic. I remain unconvinced of both sides. Part of the AGW religion requires believers to assume that anyone who doubts them is a denier who wants to destroy the earth as we know it. I think roberte is more like a Jehovah's Witness* who refuses to leave your door step because they expect you to believe not just what they believe, but also the way they believe. 

As I've said before, I live a very green life and am constantly working to make it greener. So roberte trying to convert me to her religion is pretty meaningless, but I do get a kick out of watching her try. 


*No offense meant to JW's in general, just the ones that refuse to take a polite no thank you for an answer.


----------



## DEKE01

Raeven said:


> badlander, well done. Now THAT is a useful post!
> 
> You're right. Coal, natural gas and oil -- these are so hugely entrenched in our "civilization," and it will be an Herculean task to make a switch. No one has implied or said otherwise. It's no good buying an electric car if you charge it with electricity from your local coal-fired power plant. But does that mean we shouldn't try? We're pretty amazing, we humans, when it comes to problem-solving. But first, you've got to identify the problem.
> 
> I've frequently heard people tell me we shouldn't support wind energy because wind can confuse/hurt birds. Now, I'm not discounting the importance of birds, and we should continue to develop passive renewable resources of energy that harm nothing. But really? * Dead birds against human extinction?* Let's use the wind for awhile, as we work toward even better solutions -- isn't that a better approach?
> 
> Similarly, I've had many people say we shouldn't give up coal, natural gas or oil because, you know, jobs. * I'm sorry, but if I suspected the job I was doing meant my grandchild was going to die from global warming,* I'd be finding another line of work. And I am NOT saying these are easy choices. Clearly, they are not. But if we work toward creating new jobs through new technologies... doesn't that mean everyone can stay employed AND do better for our future generations?
> 
> I disagree with your all-or-nothing, black-or-white choices, but fundamentally, you're spot on with the questions. I don't think people have to give up everything -- but they've got to start doing SOMETHING. Good grief, I know people who still don't even recycle! I've been doing it for more than 30 years! People don't seem to want to do ANYTHING, and that simply astonishes me.
> 
> - Change your stupid light bulbs.  It makes a difference.
> 
> - Recycle and reuse everything you can. It makes a difference.
> 
> - Combine your errands and drive less. Be mindful of your fuel consumption. It makes a difference.
> 
> - Unplug or use a master control outlet to shut down power when not in use. It makes a difference.
> 
> - Compost everything you can. It makes a difference.
> 
> - Adjust your thermostats a little. It makes a difference.
> 
> *- Buy food and other items local as much as you can. It makes a difference*.
> 
> - Most of all, insist that those who govern put their weight behind good policies. Get angry. Make your voice heard. It makes a difference!
> 
> Just do SOMETHING! Be MINDFUL. If everyone did, it would help a lot.
> 
> There are some amazing technologies heading our way. We need to get behind them and insist that they be supported.
> 
> What about a vehicle that can be charged through solar electricity that was generated through our road system? No need for horse-drawn carriages, just a better technology?
> 
> http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/19/sandpoint-innovators-solar-road-panels-remove/
> 
> What about batteries that charge 20 times faster than Li-ion battery, and are environmentally friendly?
> 
> http://www.gizmag.com/dual-carbon-fast-charging-battery/32121/
> 
> These are technologies that are happening NOW.
> 
> Why does world population need to be reduced through genocide (it already is, but I'm guessing that's not your point)? Why can't we voluntarily reduce our population through attrition? Choose to stop having so many children? Isn't that a choice we can make?
> 
> Just... start. Do SOMETHING. Is that really asking too much?


I already do most everything on your list, not because of global warming, but for numerous other reasons. However, the bolded items are hyperbolic at best. The AGW caused human extinction is a complete fiction and the buy local has repeatedly been shown to be wrong as far as making for a greener earth. I buy local to support my local community, but it doesn't reduce CO2. It is the kind of talk that drives people like me away from your side of the argument. Also casually dismissing the lifetime jobs, and displacing millions of workers on Solyndra-like wild hopes shows a flippant disregard for people now as opposed to something that may or may not be true in the future.


----------



## Paumon

Gray Wolf said:


> Could I *suggest a slight change in the topic* since many forums are caught up in this same debate that won't be unarguably answered until after we are all long gone.
> 
> "Should the climate be changing - for whatever reason - *how is your personal life changing and are your homesteading plans affected*?"


Been there, done that - attempted to get such a topic going on a few occasions here on HT already. Same result each time. Detractors from both sides of the discussion posting and derailing the topic with their dogmatic arguments and stupid graphs and links about the past. Granted there were a few homesteaders who did try to stay on topic and posted how it was effecting them personally and what they were doing to plan for the future to make changes and adjustments on their homesteads and farms. But they still got swamped and shouted down by the detractors. Ultimately the topics got locked down. I have a feeling it won't be possible to have a reasonable, civil un-derailed discussion about homesteading adjustments through climate change until after all the detractors have themselves been personally ruined due to an extreme climate crisis in their respective locations.


----------



## SolarGary

badlander said:


> Whether it is man made or natural occurring, I have yet to see anyone ask this simple question.
> 
> What are you willing to give up to change what is happening?
> 
> Are you willing to stop driving the auto, truck, motorcycle, or scooter that you are using for transportation and go back to a horse drawn conveyance?
> 
> Are you willing to eliminate the rail system that is used for transporting consumer goods, people and yes, coal to power plants?
> 
> Are you willing to give up electricity and go off grid entirely? No lights, no electric stoves, no gas stoves, no modern conveniences whatsoever? No Internet? No newspapers, magazines or books? No kerosene? No fires, because hey, you cannot put any more wood smoke into the atmosphere.
> 
> Stop and think what it takes to manufacture all the things that we take for granted today. Even the clothes on our backs take manufacturing to produce the cloth and the manufacturing companies need electricity. The electricity comes from where? Goal generated power plants for the most part.
> 
> So while everyone is pointing fingers and arguing po-TAY-toe, po-TAA-toe, nobody is really coming up with any solutions to the problem.
> 
> As the world population grows so does its demand for manufacturing, transportation and electricity.
> 
> So what do you all propose? Lowering the world population through genocide? There are some cultures that are trying to do just that, but not to lessen mankind's carbon footprint.
> 
> Look around your house and think about what it takes to make the TVs you watch, the groceries you buy at the local Krogers and the gas you put in your car.
> 
> IF mankind has created global weather change, what do you think the solution is? Is there a solution?
> 
> Without electricity. and with the exception of nuclear power plants and hydro-electric plants, most of our power comes from goal generated power plants, our civilization comes to a stand still.
> 
> If mankind has created climate change, it is from his and her own greed for the newest and most power thirsty gadgets that money can buy.
> 
> I seriously doubt if anyone is willing to go back to the stone age at this point to fix the problem.


Hi,
Our family went on a program to cut our energy use and carbon emissions for space heating, household electricity use and car transportation (pretty much everything we have control over). The goal was a 50% reduction -- we have achieved a 60% reduction.

We did 23 projects to do this -- mostly simple, common sense things -- all documented here:
http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm

This was not difficult and did not involve any significant life style changes, and its saving us about $4800 per year in energy costs (electricity, propane, and gasoline). 

I think that in the end we probably have to do a bit more than a 60% reduction, but I do think that can be achieved fairly easily. It does not call for stopping driving -- just more efficient cars. It certainly does not call for no railroads as they are very efficient already. I think we can and should phase out coal power in its current form -- this is happening quite a bit already just due to old coal plants and cheap NG.

There is a very good and very readable article on just your question of identifying reasonable means of reducing carbon emissions by enough to address the problem. 
http://www.udel.edu/igert/pbl_course/Socolow and Pacala Problem.pdf

They identify 15 practical projects or wedges each of which reduces carbon emissions by 25 billion tons over 50 years. Doing any 7 of which would solve the problem.
For example one of the wedges is "reduce home and office electrical consumption by 25%" -- certainly very doable.

Gary


----------



## TnAndy

Amazing....a OPW (one post wonder) starts this thread, now into 5 pages and still going.....


----------



## Jim-mi

Some trolls just wont quit.


----------



## AK Steve

Read this and tell me that "global warming" is caused by **** sapiens.


----------



## roberte

badlander said:


> So, Roberte, my question was simple. Other than posting links and table pounding proof one way or another. Other than arguing the point, WHAT is your solution. Raeven got my point and offered some very sound suggestions about what everyone should be doing to help. Individuals if motivated can make a difference. The challenge is convincing the masses that they need to pitch in and help, and sorry, I cannot see that happening.
> ....


No, your claims started out on a false premise. And just as Raeven pointed out pages back, it is important to know what the purpose of carbon saving is. 

And to know that the technology is readily available and there is no need to 'go back to the stone age'.

"My solution" does include working to educate - show how the 'skeptic' memes are manufactured lies with intent to maintain a status quo that benefits the fossil fuel segment of the world economy. The ALEC sponsored efforts to increase costs to install local solar, the disinformation campaign that has obviously caught up more than a few 'thinkers' on this site, the lobbying that went into the virtually miniscule CO2 reductions incorportated in the latest EPA effort, etc, etc; all examples of how those with interests in business as usual are working to maintain their position of power and seeming monopoly.

So spurious claims, like 'local food isn't carbon saving', or 'it's gamma rays', or 'the climate always changes', or 'it isn't 97%', all play into that issue and really need to be be shown for the lies that they are.



SolarGary said:


> 's http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/Half.htm


 offers up many ways to not only increase self-sufficiency but to reduce our 17.6 tons per person per year to something that won't push us over more tipping points. Not tipping points that we have to worry about for our grandchildren, but for effects already being seen.

But those aren't enough when we still think we've done our part by switching to CFL's, or putting bubblewrap on the windows, or starting a compost bin. Or by assuaging ourselves by making unsupportable claims that there isn't a problem. 

But those aren't enough when we have members of Congress spouting off the same 'skeptic' memes AND voting.

But those aren't enough when we have members of this forum who will vote for those congresspersons.

"The new energy economy is upon us, and the states are already playing a key role in the research, development, and deployment process that will simultaneously stimulate growth and achieve our climate goals."
- Daniel Kammen


----------



## Raeven

I agree with roberte completely, that getting the facts and information right is crucial. Accepting what is true is the first step to making great change. Understanding the actual cause is central to solving any problem. I understand why he has repeatedly posted his links. He's still waiting -- as am I -- for someone to offer some legitimate refutation to them. It hasn't come yet.

I will say again, I don't know how to talk about alarming things without sounding "alarmist." But we are not the ones who are saying that the solutions require massive change. All the "hair on fire" talk has been promulgated by those who characterize themselves in this thread as skeptics. Also a lot of ugly, non-substantiated slurs about those of us who disagree with them. But I guess if it's all you've got...



DEKE01 said:


> I already do most everything on your list, not because of global warming, but for numerous other reasons. However, the bolded items are hyperbolic at best. The AGW caused human extinction is a complete fiction and the buy local has repeatedly been shown to be wrong as far as making for a greener earth. I buy local to support my local community, but it doesn't reduce CO2. It is the kind of talk that drives people like me away from your side of the argument. Also casually dismissing the lifetime jobs, and displacing millions of workers on Solyndra-like wild hopes shows a flippant disregard for people now as opposed to something that may or may not be true in the future.


You keep saying that AGW as an ELE is a "complete fiction," but you've offered nothing substantive to refute it. Your "1350 peer-reviewed papers skeptical of global warming" is old propaganda, dating back to 2009. It's been debunked again and again, with virtually all those "scientists" having been tied directly to the fossil fuels industry. You still don't know that? Better catch up on your studies -- you can find that out for yourself with about 30 seconds of Googling.

I did not casually dismiss lifetime jobs. You completely disregarded the sentence that followed what you cherry-picked. I said, "Clearly, these are NOT easy choices." There's nothing casual or flippant about that. But I do understand this doesn't suit your world view about people like me.

And obviously, not everyone can do everything. But everyone can do SOMETHING. That's all I've urged throughout this thread.

Continually invoking Solyndra while simultaneously disregarding that the very same amount of money was spent by the fossil fuel industry to defeat ONE BILL addressing acknowledged climate change in 2009 clearly demonstrates your bias. Understanding the Solyndra failure requires more in-depth study than you appear prepared to devote to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/solyndra--explained/2012/06/01/gJQAig2g6U_blog.html

But I do understand that saying "Solyndra" is a dog whistle among skeptics, as if it actually means something. As is almost always the case, the truth is far more nuanced.

I am glad you do almost everything on my list -- for whatever reason. Truly, thank you.


----------



## Raeven

They're getting after it in other countries. I wish we had invented this, but hooray to the Aussies!

http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20140506-25618.html

Oh -- and new jobs, yeah?


----------



## ET1 SS

Raeven said:


> They're getting after it in other countries. I wish we had invented this, but hooray to the Aussies!
> 
> http://sciencealert.com.au/news/20140506-25618.html
> 
> Oh -- and new jobs, yeah?


Wow that is great, right along behind; Agua Caliente, and SunPower, and Ivanpah, and Abengoa Solar, and the Solana Generating Station.


----------



## Jim-mi

That golly-gee-wizz technology has been around for some while.
Only difference is the Aussies built it bigger.
They are built in desert areas . . . .max sun.
They are no help at all for the east coast mega population.
What good are they when the sun is down . . . .?????????

The grid still needs its base load supplied . . .as has been done very well thank you with coal.

But NO . . num-nuts owebummer shuts down coal generating. 

Do you want to save some carbon . .?
Or do you still want electricity for your home . . .?

posted from a home powered by solar and wind.............


----------



## lurnin2farm

Just read through this thread. Some interesting points on both sides. 

My opinion from personal observation in my lifetime is that the climate is changing. Ice core samples from as far back as we can get them also support this observation. 
Does man cause any of this? Again from my own observations I can say yes. How much I have no idea but I dont think science has any idea either so we are in the same boat. 

Imagine for a minute that the earth climate is a bathtub full of ice cold water. We turn on the faucet just a tiny bit with hot water so we barely get 1 drop a minute. After 4 hrs has the water warmed? Yes it has.. Has the 4 drops of water made a difference? Probably not much. 
Now lets fast forward and imagine that the faucet is now pouring out hot water to represent 7 billion people. Is the water warming? Yes and its obvious that people are making a difference. 

I know its not the best example but you get the picture. The earth is doing its own thing. We are now at a point where we as a collective species can have an impact. Examples of this impact are all around us. Air quality, water quality, soil quality. All ingredients for life and its obvious we impact every one of them. How can we possibly think we dont impact the earth as a whole? I dont know whos right or wrong but we only have 1 planet and our future generations arent going to be very pleased that we squandered all of these resources. We are really just conducting one giant experiment. 

I think the problem many people have is they cant see the big picture. The trucks, railcars, shipping thats going on all over the planet just to move trivial trinkets to fuel consumerism. Seems we could use our resources more wisely.

I see the question come up a few times. Can 1 person do anything about it? From personal observation I can say yes. I made a decision to change my lifestyle. I now live in a passive solar home built into an embankment. I heat 1800 sqr ft with a small wood stove. I burn 3-5 cord of wood a year and that will go down by 75-90% when I get the rocket mass stove installed. I am working on growing as much of my food as possible. I recycle and repurpose as much as I can. Composting. Of course. No tv or cable for me either. I have reduced my footprint considerably and am still working to do more. More importantly I have shown others how to do it too and several people I know are working towards a similar goal. Not all will have a passive solar home but they are growing their own food and are more aware of whats really going on. As they make changes in their lives their friends see it and also want to follow suit. Have I as 1 person had an impact? Of course but the beauty of my impact is that it will keep happening and keep adding to the overall impact of the planet. Its sort of like a pyramid scheme except I dont collect any royalties from people under me and the pyramid just keeps on growing forever.


----------



## roberte

*Stanwell blames solar for decline in fossil fuel baseload
*
By Giles Parkinson on 1 October 2013


This what the decline of base-load and centralised generation looks like. Stanwell Corp, the Queensland government owned electricity generator, has failed to make any money in the past year from its 4,000MW of coal and gas fired generation because rooftop solar has taken away demand and pushed down wholesale electricity prices.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/stanwell-blames-solar-for-decline-in-fossil-fuel-baseload-54543


----------



## roberte

Jim-mi said:


> ....
> 
> What good are they when the sun is down . . . .?????????
> 
> The grid still needs its base load supplied . . .as has been done very well thank you with coal.
> ....


*Can renewables provide baseload power?
*
What The Science Says:
Numerous case studies on both regional and global scales have determined that renewable energy, if properly implemented, can provide baseload power.

Climate Myth: Renewables can't provide baseload power
The myth that renewable energy sources can't meet baseload (24-hour per day) demand has become quite widespread and widely-accepted. After all, the wind doesn't blow all the time, and there's no sunlight at night. However, detailed computer simulations, backed up by real-world experience with wind power, demonstrate that a transition to 100% energy production from renewable sources is possible within the next few decades.

*Reducing Baseload Demand
*
Firstly, we currently do not use our energy very efficiently. For example, nighttime energy demand is much lower than during the day, and yet we waste a great deal of energy from coal and nuclear power plants, which are difficult to power up quickly, and are thus left running at high capacity even when demand is low. Baseload demand can be further reduced by increasing the energy efficiency of homes and other buildings.

*Renewable Baseload Sources
*
Secondly, some renewable energy sources are just as reliable for baseload energy as fossil fuels. For example, bio-electricity generated from burning the residues of crops and plantation forests, concentrated solar thermal power with low-cost thermal storage (such as in molten salt), and hot-rock geothermal power. In fact, bio-electricity from residues already contributes to both baseload and peak-load power in parts of Europe and the USA, and is poised for rapid growth. Concentrated solar thermal technology is advancing rapidly, and a 19.9-megawatt solar thermal plant opened in Spain in 2011 (Gemasolar), which stores energy in molten salt for up to 15 hours, and is thus able to provide energy 20 hours per day on average, and 24 hours per day during much of the summer.

*Addressing Intermittency from Wind and Solar
*
Wind power is currently the cheapest source of renewable energy, but presents the challenge of dealing with the intermittency of windspeed. Nevertheless, as of 2011, wind already supplies 24% of Denmark's electricity generation, and over 14% of Spain and Portugal's.

Although the output of a single wind farm will fluctuate greatly, the fluctuations in the total output from a number of wind farms geographically distributed in different wind regimes will be much smaller and partially predictable. Modeling has also shown that it's relatively inexpensive to increase the reliability of the total wind output to a level equivalent to a coal-fired power station by adding a few low-cost peak-load gas turbines that are opearated infrequently, to fill in the gaps when the wind farm production is low (Diesendorf 2010). Additionally, in many regions, peak wind (see Figure 4 below) and solar production match up well with peak electricity demand.

Current power grid systems are already built to handle fluctuations in supply and demand with peak-load plants such as hydroelectric and gas turbines which can be switched on and off quickly, and by reserve baseload plants that are kept hot. Adding wind and solar photovoltaic capacity to the grid may require augmenting the amount of peak-load plants, which can be done relatively cheaply by adding gas turbines, which can be fueled by sustainably-produced biofuels or natural gas. Recent studies by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that wind could supply 20-30% of electricity, given improved transmission links and a little low-cost flexible back-up. 
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=374


----------



## roberte

Jim-mi said:


> ....
> ...thank you with coal.
> 
> But NO . . num-nuts owebummer shuts down coal generating.
> 
> ....


The Harvard paper estimates that *&#8220;the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.&#8221;* This study lays out in detail the costs the coal industry is NOT PAYING and what everyone else IS PAYING! The paper details all the factors that are not quantifiable, like lost work time when a mother has to take her child to the doctor for an asthma attack or the cost to a family for the loss of a loved one or wage earner.


The paper finds:

"Each stage in the life cycle of coal&#8212;extraction, transport, processing, and combustion&#8212;generates a waste stream and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and thus are often considered as &#8220;externalities.&#8221; We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually. Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of non fossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive. We focus on Appalachia, though coal is mined in other regions of the United States and is burned throughout the world."

Half a trillion dollars is a large amount and this Harvard study is a conservative estimate of the true costs of coal. &#8220;The impacts found are damages due to climate change; public health damages from NOx, SO2, PM2.5, and mercury emissions; fatalities of members of the public due to rail accidents during coal transport; the public health burden in Appalachia associated with coal mining; government subsidies; and lost value of abandoned mine lands.&#8221; http://cleantechnica.com/2011/02/17/cost-of-coal-500-billion-year-in-u-s-harvard-study-finds/


----------



## roberte

Jim-mi said:


> ....
> . . num-nuts owebummer shuts down coal generating.
> ....



Under the rule, states will be given a wide menu of policy options to achieve the pollution cuts. Rather than immediately shutting down coal plants, states would be allowed to reduce emissions by making changes across their electricity systems â by installing new wind and solar generation or energy-efficiency technology, and by starting or joining state and regional âcap and tradeâ programs, in which states agree to cap carbon pollution and buy and sell permits to pollute.

E.P.A. officials have said they hope the flexible approach will allow states to comply with the regulation more easily and cost-effectively, by adopting policies best tailored to regional economies and energy mixes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/u...-30-percent-cut-in-carbon-emissions.html?_r=0


----------



## roberte

lurnin2farm said:


> ....
> ... I dont think science has any idea either so we are in the same boat.
> ....


A rather large portion of this thread is documentation that the scientists have developed a huge body of evidence - replicable research - showing cause and strength of the effect. As you point out, a profligate burning of fossil fuels, and the first drips were the early industrial age.

Arrhenius showed that the burning of fossil fuels was having an effect during the Victorian Era and the ensuing 100+ years has just added to that certainty. That is why we are at 97-98% consensus - the data supports it.

The 'skeptic' memes like 'the science isn't settled', etc have delayed what could have been an easy transition from low efficiency to high efficiency, from fossil to renewable. 

From the 1968 Republican Party platform: 
"An expanding population and increasing material wealth require new public concern for the quality of our environment. Our nation must pursue its activities in harmony with the environment. As we develop our natural resources we must be mindful of our priceless heritage of natural beauty.

A national minerals and fuels policy is essential to maintain production needed for our nation's economy and security. Present economic incentives, including depletion allowances, to encourage the discovery and development of vital minerals and fuels must be continued. We must recognize the increasing demand for minerals and fuels by our economy, help ensure an economically stable industry, maintain a favorable balance of trade and balance of payments, and encourage research to promote the wise use of these resources."http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25841​
"When Gwen Ifill asked Sarah Palin whether she supported capping carbon emissions, Palin's answer left no room for confusion: "I do," she replied." 

(http://www.vox.com/2014/6/2/5770506/remember-when-the-gop-believed-in-climate-change/in/5534613)

And the rather famous Gingrich/Polosi PSA [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi6n_-wB154[/ame]

But now, with the issue politicized, we have 


Jim-mi said:


> . . num-nuts owebummer shuts down coal generating.


rather than substantive discussions on science based policies to reduce the speed with which we will be seeing more and more disruptions in our weather, more temp. extremes, more droughts and floods, more sea level rise, more human displacement, more species migration and extinction, more human tragedy. 


Otherwise, well-written and accurate. Thanks!


----------



## Jim-mi

Why yes it is well written . . . . . .

You on the other hand just don't know when to quit..........


----------



## Paumon

Jim-mi said:


> Why yes it is well written . . . . . .
> 
> You on the other hand just don't know when to quit..........


He wasn't responding to you. Speaking of quitting, nobody is twisting your arm forcing you to read it or to reply.


----------



## lurnin2farm

> A rather large portion of this thread is documentation that the scientists have developed a huge body of evidence - replicable research - showing cause and strength of the effect. As you point out, a profligate burning of fossil fuels, and the first drips were the early industrial age.


And I dont disagree with you on any of the points you are making. To clarify what I meant was that how much of an impact are we as a species really having versus how much is a natural. In the end it really doesnt matter if everyone on the planet is not living sustainable lifestyles. 

The earth currently is a living breathing organism. In the big picture I would say its suffering from some cancer. Other than humans I know of no other species that goes around the planet destroying precious resources. In fact all other living things on the planet have some sort of purpose. Most of us were taught the circle of life back in school, well most of us over 40 anyway.. I dont know what they teach nowadays. We are all connected to everything else. We seem to have forgotten this very important fact. 
Our planet is sick for many reasons and they are many things we can all do to make a difference.

Another way to look at the planet is this...........We live on a big rock covered by water, trees ect and we have an atmosphere. Many systems are renewable. water for instance. We drink it and pee and it could go back into the earth and be purified water, rich in minerals once again. 
Other things are not renewable like oil. Over time I suppose you could say its renewable and you would be correct but its taken 4 billion years of carbon sequestration to get us the oil we have today. We will burn through most of it in about 200 years from start to finish. We will also release all of that carbon back into the atmosphere where it inherently does not belong. 
Could we stretch that out over 2000 years or even 200000 years if we just used it for agriculture or something? Yes but we just prolong the outcome. Of course its better than using it up in 200 years. The point is it isnt a sustainable way to live on the planet. I dont know how much carbon the earth converts into oil in a year but whatever that number is is how much we should be using at most. The same with all of our Non renewable resources. 

We either live sustainable lifestyles in harmony with nature or we destroy nature for our own comfort or convenience. If we choose the latter then eventually we destroy ourselves. So, which generation will be the last? 

How many individuals have actually viewed this thread? 500? If all 500 got together just to do 1 thing and made simple changes to our life it would have an impact. If all of us told one other person to also make those changes then there's 1000 people making an impact. It would continue to spread from there. Lead by example and others will follow. All that needs to be done is plant the seed. People will figure things out on their own. Then we get the 100 monkey principle. It just becomes common knowledge.


----------



## Roadking

Heck of a response from a hit and run poster. Makes one post on the board and vanishes.
Perhaps it would add credence should he actually return with input/discussion.
One total post. You have been baited, IMO.

Matt


----------



## unregistered41671

Roadking said:


> Heck of a response from a hit and run poster. Makes one post on the board and vanishes.
> Perhaps it would add credence should he actually return with input/discussion.
> One total post. You have been baited, IMO.
> 
> Matt


It does kinda make you wonder.


----------



## Raeven

Roadking said:


> Heck of a response from a hit and run poster. Makes one post on the board and vanishes.
> Perhaps it would add credence should he actually return with input/discussion.
> One total post. You have been baited, IMO.
> 
> Matt


 Who cares who started it, or why? Some of us find it a worthy topic for discussion. Is that a problem?


----------



## Roadking

After 8 pages, it has turned into a round robin issue. Not seeing anything really productive coming from it. It has run it's course.

Matt


----------

