MonroeTalks.com

Categories => News => Topic started by: Baby Hitler on July 04, 2012, 08:52:00 PM

Title: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 04, 2012, 08:52:00 PM
Was over 100 degrees here today.

(http://imgwiz.com/images/2012/07/04/vAoaJ.jpg)
And going to be over 100 the next few days.

This is certainly not climate change. 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: blue2 on July 04, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
I'm not ready to buy into the theory until we get a few years of it.  It's all cyclical.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 05, 2012, 12:41:10 AM
I'm not ready to buy into the theory until we get a few years of it.  It's all cyclical.
How's this?

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg/600px-Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg.png)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 05, 2012, 12:42:16 AM
(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2011/noaa_globaltemp_2010-sm.jpg)

or that?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 03:06:58 AM
So let us see.... the MORE INFORMED we get about global warming, and the MORE FIXES we put into place, and the MORE LEGISLATION we pass, and the MORE EDUCATED we get, and the MORE REPORTING stations we put in place and the MORE TECHNOLOGY we use to study the matter IS ONLY MAKING THINGS WORSE?

The harder we try, and the more positive steps we take, and still no positive results?  Could it be the science is ALL WRONG and we are in a cycle (just as your graph suggests)?  Don't you think it is curious that the more we learn, try and act on global warming that we only make the problem worse?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 03:07:51 AM
BTW... it is summer.  Will you be singing the same tune if we are buried under 3 feet of snow in January?  Probably not.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 05, 2012, 04:11:44 AM
So let us see.... the MORE INFORMED we get about global warming, and the MORE FIXES we put into place,
Please inform me about those fixes that have been put in place. I haven't heard of any yet.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 05:50:32 AM
Really? None?  I will leave you to think about that all day.

If you think there have been no "pro environment" changes in the way we live our normal day to day lives you may be living in a cave.  Ever hear of CAFE standards?  That is a great jumping off point.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on July 05, 2012, 07:46:05 AM
The problem is JBS, we're still emitting a ton of greehouse gasses.  The small fixes we put into place will have no impact unless we drastically cut down on fossil fuel consumption immediately.  I'm posting from my phone or else I would provide links to show that we are not doing enough to fix this problem.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 05, 2012, 08:12:40 AM
We only have data for our small portion of visiting this planet and having technology to measure.   Cyclical can mean there are changes that occur over hundreds or thousands of years, and also may be affected by the Sun and other planetary influences as we rotate through space.

Does pollution cause problems - probably yes, and while we have started to control it over years - other countries are doing more (China) pollution that we have no control over.     It's like recycling - a nice thing to do for the environment, and being a good neighbor.  Does that mean we really affect the environment in that grand a manner?  Scientist on all sides are attempting to explain:

Here's an interesting view on influences on the temperate climate changes.   
_____________________________________________________
Solar Cycles Cause Global Warming & Cooling

By Nick Anthony Fiorenza
ICECAP, June 3, 2011

Planetary warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and on Neptune’s largest moon Triton during the decades following the peak of the “Solar Grand Maximum” – wonder why – there are no humans there! And Pluto is moving further from the sun in its orbit, thus it should be cooling, but instead it is warming. This is but one blatant indicator that suggests that the climate change on Earth is due to solar changes and our intersellar environment rather than mere human antics.

More importantly, the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a “global cooling” may be on the horizon–a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles.

Latest science reveals that sharp increases in global warming “precede” sharp increases in CO2–not the other way around. Global warming causes more CO2 to be released form the oceans. Current research also shows that Earth’s oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun.

Let the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) advocates, as well as the media, continue to ignore all of this, perpetuating fear and advocating spending billions of dollars on non-solutions. Although humans contribute to greenhouse gases, the overall effect is a tiny fraction compared to natural causes. To say humans are the cause of global warming; and to also make predictions that global warming will continue to increase is simply inaccurate. This is not to ignore the silver lining of the global warming scare, as humanity must certainly learn to participate in harmony with nature, with the breath of the Earth and with her land and oceans; and with the cycles of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars.

http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/solar-cycles-cause-global-warming-cooling/ (http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/solar-cycles-cause-global-warming-cooling/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 05, 2012, 12:38:30 PM
"Climate scientists suggest that if you want a glimpse of some of the worst of global warming, take a look at U.S. weather in recent weeks. Horrendous wildfires. Oppressive heat waves. Devastating droughts. Flooding from giant deluges. And a powerful freak wind storm called a derecho. These are the kinds of extremes experts have predicted will come with climate change, although it's far too early to say that is the cause. Nor will they say global warming is the reason 3,215 daily high temperature records were set in the month of June...".

Heat Waves, Wildfires, & Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA3W5Y-uxOQ&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 05, 2012, 01:50:36 PM
The US is in the grip of the hottest summer on record, which fueled the storm that hammered seven states last weekend. Ed Schultz talks to Eugene Robinson, MSNBC Political Analyst, and Associate Editor And Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the Washington Post about why politicians still deny climate change exists.

The ED Show - This is what global warming looks like (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGXZqluNZLE&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 02:56:45 PM
The problem is JBS, we're still emitting a ton of greehouse gasses.  The small fixes we put into place will have no impact unless we drastically cut down on fossil fuel consumption immediately.  I'm posting from my phone or else I would provide links to show that we are not doing enough to fix this problem.

Well since people will stand and point one finger at you and say we are killing the planet and then turn around and point the other finger at you saying you are not allowed to efficiently produce the alternatives... I see no point in really arguing this point, do you?

Too many Al Gore types in this world... the do as I say not as I do crowd.

We have the technology... too much money and politics stands in the way.  However I still feel since we really have no good handle on what the numbers really were 100 years ago (lack of technology, and minimum amount of reporting stations) I see a cycle.  Just like with hurricanes... we have NO WAY of knowing how many tropical cyclones there were in the 1800's or even the first portion of the 1900's.  Same with tornado activity... there is NO WAY of knowing how many thousands of tornadoes affected rural areas years ago.  More people live near the coastlines now, damage and human loss is going to inherently be greater, in some years past we didn't know about a hurricane until it hit something (land or a boat).  Why do we have more tornadoes now?  Every inch of our Nation is covered by Doppler radar.  This is why global warming is junk science... for every argument that can be made, there is a viable alternate argument that cannot be debunked, thus the global warming crowd with all its reporting and fancy graphs has proven NOTHING, only supplied a hypothesis based on a highly limited amount of data, based on a baseline group of statistics that THEY HAVE SET for their research purposes.

Do I see a pattern?  Yes... patterns of a cycle.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 03:03:04 PM
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/derechofacts.htm#otherderechos (http://www.spc.noaa.gov/misc/AbtDerechos/derechofacts.htm#otherderechos)

Derechos have been occuring for years... and again... no way to effectively document them since we didn't have the tecchnology until recently.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 05, 2012, 03:06:00 PM
Well since people will stand and point one finger at you and say we are killing the planet and then turn around and point the other finger at you saying you are not allowed to efficiently produce the alternatives... I see no point in really arguing this point, do you?

Too many Al Gore types in this world... the do as I say not as I do crowd.

We have the technology... too much money and politics stands in the way.  However I still feel since we really have no good handle on what the numbers really were 100 years ago (lack of technology, and minimum amount of reporting stations) I see a cycle.  Just like with hurricanes... we have NO WAY of knowing how many tropical cyclones there were in the 1800's or even the first portion of the 1900's.  Same with tornado activity... there is NO WAY of knowing how many thousands of tornadoes affected rural areas years ago.  More people live near the coastlines now, damage and human loss is going to inherently be greater, in some years past we didn't know about a hurricane until it hit something (land or a boat).  Why do we have more tornadoes now?  Every inch of our Nation is covered by Doppler radar.  This is why global warming is junk science... for every argument that can be made, there is a viable alternate argument that cannot be debunked, thus the global warming crowd with all its reporting and fancy graphs has proven NOTHING, only supplied a hypothesis based on a highly limited amount of data, based on a baseline group of statistics that THEY HAVE SET for their research purposes.

Do I see a pattern?  Yes... patterns of a cycle.
It's great when no matter how much data is presented to you, and how many ways it's presented, that you can still deny what is happening all around you and all around the globe.

A pattern? Yep, a pattern of denial.

Melting glacial ice caps, the melting of both the poles, lakes and rivers that have flowed for thousands of years drying up.

Sticking your head in the sand may be one way of getting out of the sun, but you're gonna get your butt burned.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 04:32:45 PM
Data is great, when it is realiably compared to similar data. 

I study and understand weather, and for all the horrible tragic dramatic events you can point to to prove "global warming" I can point you to equally tragic if not worse events from when the globe was "cool".

Hot weather make for the best time to push this agenda... after all by golly it is hot... The United States had a hot day and is experiencing a hot and dry period right now... EVER HEAR OF THE DUST BOWL?  Was that from global warming?  Your data suggests not!

Your data is a squiggly line, a group of years below the mean and a group of years above.  You have no evidence, only a hunch that the line will never fall back below the mean.  Junk science at its best.  Something to monitor and take note of?  Yes, something to present as a dire end of times argument?  Only if you are pushing an agenda.

I am not burying my head in the sand, I just don't agree with your "science".  Figures don't lie but....  You know the rest.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 04:38:10 PM
More instances of dramatic and horrifying weather, all equal or worse to todays sensational events.  All occuring during "global cooling"?

http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/sig_weath_events.html (http://www.geo.msu.edu/geogmich/sig_weath_events.html)

Just because the news makes it look like the world is ending, these events have been ongoing for decades upon decades.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 05, 2012, 05:31:05 PM
It’s all just a cycle, wait maybe it is a Depeche Mode, no wait it doesn’t exist....

The vast majority of EXPERTS agree that climate change is real and not a cycle.  You know - the people who actually do know what they are talking about. 

I find the whole - bury your head - argument as ludicrous.  You go to the doctor and he says the spots on your skin is cancer, so you go to 2000 more doctors and get the same diagnosis, yet when number 2001 agrees with you that it could be moles or freckles you believe that one.  Then when you are near death from cancer you agree that maybe all of those doctors were right after all, just before you take your last breath.

That’s the big problem, if you are wrong, if it is a real event and not a cycle, to do nothing means really bad.  You can say you were wrong as the last man on earth dies?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and some say it is running out.  It makes complete sense to try to change to something else, hydro, wind, solar, and maybe nuclear, probably all of the above. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 05, 2012, 05:31:23 PM
More instances of dramatic and horrifying weather, all equal or worse to todays sensational events.  All occuring during "global cooling"?
The proper term is climate change. Radical change in weather caused by an overall increase in the world's temperature.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 05, 2012, 07:53:28 PM
Your data is a squiggly line, a group of years below the mean and a group of years above.

Uh, it's a pretty solid trend upwards since 1860. I'm not sure if you ever took a statistics class, but upward/downward trends are rarely a straight line in the real world.

Even oil industry shills agree the earth is getting warmer at this point. The big "thing" now with climate change is whether it's our fault (hint: it is), or weather it's all just God's Plan For The Planet (hint: it isn't).

but hey, who cares, I'll be dead in a few decades anyway, and I don't really care about your kids or grandkids, so I'm going to buy all the aerosol cans I can and burn them in your front yard, and pump sludge into your water table, and burn all the coal ever, because it's cheap and it's here now and i'm a Murkin.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 08:40:11 PM
(https://www2.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/news/2011/noaa_globaltemp_2010-sm.jpg)

or that?



Uh, it's a pretty solid trend upwards since 1860.

I'm not sure if you ever took a statistics class, but upward/downward trends are rarely a straight line in the real world.



It is?  Are we looking at the same chart that FB kindly provided?  I see a downward trend all the way into the teens... a move towards normal and even an area of fluctuation for about 25 years from 1950-1975.  So your argument is about 30 years of data in a 150 year cycle, 20% of a given sample and only a small sample over the history of the earth.  YET YOU DEMAND I ACCEPT IT AS FACT?

I have an education level more than what I figure you think I do, and my grade in statistics class was just fine thank you.  Even my statistics prof would agree that the graph provides evidence of somesort of pattern, but is not proof of anything.

You are glorifying junk science, and that is fine... it is the chic thing to do... but just realize that it is junk science.  Why is it junk science?  Because there are several people offering reasonable alternative theories that your proof and data does not explain.  But instead of acknowledging that what you are pushing is an agenda based on a theory, you just state it as fact and accuse everyone who refuses to buy in as being ignorant and evil.

What does the chart look like to the left of the start point FB?  Here is a hint either a: NO ONE KNOWS  or b: There is a big spike above the mean that is hidden from general view because it absolutely kills the idea that this warming trend is something we have never seen before.  There used to be dinosaurs on the planet FB, what was our global temperatture then?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 05, 2012, 09:49:05 PM
Actually the reason that there isn't records before then, is because there weren't records being taken before then.

That particular graph is an accumulation of data from all over the world, including the oceans. (Hence the "Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean" title) Those grey bars represent the monthly highs and lows for that particular year.

Guess we will have to wait another 150 years to see if your theory pans out.

Oh, here's another Junk Science report that you will just poo poo away.

(http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/CIS/houghton/images/fig2.jpg)

That only goes back 1000 years, sorry I don't have anything from the dinosaurs yet, they always are late turning in their homework.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 05, 2012, 11:18:34 PM


It is?  Are we looking at the same chart that FB kindly provided?  I see a downward trend all the way into the teens... a move towards normal and even an area of fluctuation for about 25 years from 1950-1975.  So your argument is about 30 years of data in a 150 year cycle, 20% of a given sample and only a small sample over the history of the earth.  YET YOU DEMAND I ACCEPT IT AS FACT?

I have an education level more than what I figure you think I do, and my grade in statistics class was just fine thank you.  Even my statistics prof would agree that the graph provides evidence of somesort of pattern, but is not proof of anything.

You are glorifying junk science, and that is fine... it is the chic thing to do... but just realize that it is junk science.  Why is it junk science?  Because there are several people offering reasonable alternative theories that your proof and data does not explain.  But instead of acknowledging that what you are pushing is an agenda based on a theory, you just state it as fact and accuse everyone who refuses to buy in as being ignorant and evil.

What does the chart look like to the left of the start point FB?  Here is a hint either a: NO ONE KNOWS  or b: There is a big spike above the mean that is hidden from general view because it absolutely kills the idea that this warming trend is something we have never seen before.  There used to be dinosaurs on the planet FB, what was our global temperatture then?

You're right, it must be all a grand Socialist conspiracy to keep you from driving your Jeep because the libruls hate teh hitlerz. or whatever.

I bow to your infinite statistical wisdom. The graph is "inconclusive", therefore it's "okay" to "burn fossil fuels", roughly "forever", and "as much as we want", because "murka **** yeah."


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 05, 2012, 11:20:50 PM
I'd listen to your rebuttal, but I'm too busy waving my petroleum-based American flag around on top of my Humvee while I shoot baby polar bears full of aerosol. These ice caps won't melt themselves!


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 05, 2012, 11:56:15 PM
Nice... two replies filled with snark.  And one with highly unproven science.  Awsome!

Tree rings indicate moisture, and growth rate.  Not temperature... unless you "conclude" that moisture and growth rate MUST coincide with temperature.  Try harder because they don't.

More junk science!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 06, 2012, 12:00:18 AM
It’s all just a cycle, wait maybe it is a Depeche Mode, no wait it doesn’t exist....

The vast majority of EXPERTS agree that climate change is real and not a cycle.  You know - the people who actually do know what they are talking about. 

I find the whole - bury your head - argument as ludicrous.  You go to the doctor and he says the spots on your skin is cancer, so you go to 2000 more doctors and get the same diagnosis, yet when number 2001 agrees with you that it could be moles or freckles you believe that one.  Then when you are near death from cancer you agree that maybe all of those doctors were right after all, just before you take your last breath.

That’s the big problem, if you are wrong, if it is a real event and not a cycle, to do nothing means really bad.  You can say you were wrong as the last man on earth dies?

Fossil fuels are a finite resource and some say it is running out.  It makes complete sense to try to change to something else, hydro, wind, solar, and maybe nuclear, probably all of the above. 


If you read the posts, I am NOT the one taking the "I am right you are wrong approach" here.  That would be FB and LF.

I am all in favor of alternative fuels... of course how do we know that in 30 years (because apparently that is all it takes to draw a conclusive study for an earth that has existed for millions or years) that alternative fuels won't have some unforseen consequence that launches us into another quadrillionaire motived death march towards the center of the sun?

Chicken Little said the sky was falling too.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 06, 2012, 12:39:42 AM
Nice... two replies filled with snark.  And one with highly unproven science.  Awsome!

Tree rings indicate moisture, and growth rate.  Not temperature... unless you "conclude" that moisture and growth rate MUST coincide with temperature.  Try harder because they don't.

More junk science!

I refuse to believe the polar ice caps are melting, because of SCIENCE!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 06, 2012, 01:51:50 AM
Nice... two replies filled with snark.  And one with highly unproven science.  Awsome!

Tree rings indicate moisture, and growth rate.  Not temperature... unless you "conclude" that moisture and growth rate MUST coincide with temperature.  Try harder because they don't.

More junk science!
Yep, them there boys at NASA haven't a damn clue what they are talking about.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 06, 2012, 03:45:05 AM
NASA... You mean outer space?

I can provide rebuttals to everything you bring to the plate, but you will just poo poo everyone and say "blah blah blah it is happening and you are an uneducated fool until you agree with me" so really what is the point in continuing?

You believe a theory that you cannot prove.  I have alternate examples that debunk what you believe... yet you have the PROOF?  That is not in line with the Scientific Theory.  Therefore you are in bed with junk science.  I will wait for PROOF.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 06, 2012, 07:54:50 AM
g
It’s all just a cycle, wait maybe it is a Depeche Mode, no wait it doesn’t exist....

The vast majority of EXPERTS agree that climate change is real and not a cycle.  You know - the people who actually do know what they are talking about. 

Climatologist extrapolate or pick and chose what they look at as data from some some shaky sourses when you start going back more than 150 years to regions where measurements were not recorded with the regularity of today's data.

I also find it interesting they don't offer data on the sun and it's activities to coincide with temporal changes. Or do they consider that junk science since they can't make their "case" if it's included?

 Is pollution hurting the Earth - yes but is it the sole source of warming or cooling cycles - no!  The mass and energy of the Sun, solar cycles, and even proximity of other planets have more effect than many choose to consider for some reason?  Probably from that same lack of recorded data.  Size and mass and energy make it a more reasonable explanation   Put the pollution as a small percentage of contribution and you'd be closer to actuality say 10%?  Thus it plays a small role but not the major cause.

Of that small percent how much can be affected by US gov controls? After all isn't that what the debate really is about?  Letting the government tell us what we can or can not do. ("it's for the children")

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 06, 2012, 08:53:41 AM
NASA... You mean outer space?

Do you seriously think the National Aeronautic and Space Administration only deals with outer space?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 06, 2012, 08:54:59 AM
You believe a theory that you cannot prove.  I have alternate examples that debunk what you believe... yet you have the PROOF?  That is not in line with the Scientific Theory.  Therefore you are in bed with junk science.  I will wait for PROOF.

You cannot prove that me burying my toxic garbage under your house is going to harm your family, therefore I will do it, because SCIENCE.


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 06, 2012, 09:13:07 AM
NASA... You mean outer space?

I can provide rebuttals to everything you bring to the plate, but you will just poo poo everyone and say "blah blah blah it is happening and you are an uneducated fool until you agree with me" so really what is the point in continuing?

You believe a theory that you cannot prove.  I have alternate examples that debunk what you believe... yet you have the PROOF?  That is not in line with the Scientific Theory.  Therefore you are in bed with junk science.  I will wait for PROOF.
Ok, what PROOF is it that you require? Evidently, you have some idea of what empirical evidence that would finally make you believe.

What is it?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 06, 2012, 09:35:41 AM
The military shooting lazers in the sky and heating things can't be good. Weather manipulation, nukes, hole in the ozone. Burden of proof should be on the ones creating this mess!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 06, 2012, 04:44:25 PM

Burden of proof should be on the ones creating this mess!


I'll ask the Sun to give a statment   ;D

Somewhere between the two is where the cause is, just as when the climate was cooling years ago.   
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 06, 2012, 04:56:10 PM
Is the Sun to Blame?

How do we know that changes in the sun aren’t to blame for current global warming trends?

Since 1978, a series of satellite instruments have measured the energy output of the sun directly. The satellite data show a very slight drop in solar irradiance (which is a measure of the amount of energy the sun gives off) over this time period. So the sun doesn't appear to be responsible for the warming trend observed over the past 30 years.

Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 06, 2012, 04:59:53 PM
Causes
A blanket around the Earth
(http://climate.nasa.gov/images/normPage-3.jpg)

Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" -- warming that results when the atmosphere traps heat radiating from Earth toward space.

Certain gases in the atmosphere block heat from escaping. Long-lived gases, remaining semi-permanently in the atmosphere, which do not respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are described as "forcing" climate change whereas gases, such as water, which respond physically or chemically to changes in temperature are seen as "feedbacks."

Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

    Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

    Carbon dioxide (CO2). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

    Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

    Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

    Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases .

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

    On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

    Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

    A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

    Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

They said the rate of increase in global warming due to these gases is very likely to be unprecedented within the past 10,000 years or more. The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf. (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.)

Solar irradiance

It's reasonable to assume that changes in the sun's energy output would cause the climate to change, since the sun is the fundamental source of energy that drives our climate system.

Indeed, studies show that solar variability has played a role in past climate changes. For example, a decrease in solar activity is thought to have triggered the Little Ice Age between approximately 1650 and 1850, when Greenland was largely cut off by ice from 1410 to the 1720s and glaciers advanced in the Alps.

But several lines of evidence show that current global warming cannot be explained by changes in energy from the sun:

    Since 1750, the average amount of energy coming from the Sun either remained constant or increased slightly.

    If the warming were caused by a more active sun, then scientists would expect to see warmer temperatures in all layers of the atmosphere. Instead, they have observed a cooling in the upper atmosphere, and a warming at the surface and in the lower parts of the atmosphere. That's because greenhouse gasses are trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.

    Climate models that include solar irradiance changes can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend over the past century or more without including a rise in greenhouse gases.
http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on July 06, 2012, 06:28:55 PM
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast05jan_1/ (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast05jan_1/)

"Mars may once have been a very wet place. A host of clues remain from an earlier era, billions of years ago, hinting that the Red Planet was host to great rivers, lakes and perhaps even an ocean."

Then along came a few billion Martians that started burning coal to make electricity and turned their atmosphere into muck and the planet over heated, turning it into the giant dust ball it is today. Do we want to be next???
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on July 06, 2012, 06:49:02 PM
There's more to it than just Co2.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html (http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/why_glaciations1.html)

Variation in the Earth's orbit through time causes changes in the amount and distribution of sunlight (and other solar radiation) reaching the Earth's surface. These changes are thought to affect the development of ice sheets.

Although the idea that variation in the Earth's orbit causes glacial-interglacial cycles originated in the mid 1800s, Milutin Milankovitch first popularized it in about 1920. Although Milankovitch's hypothesis was not widely accepted initially; data collected during the 1970's have generated broad support for it.

Three orbital parameters are especially important in causing ice sheet waxing and waning:

1.Changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit
2.Changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis
3.The precession of the equinoxes

In combination these factors influence the amount and distribution of solar radiation reaching the Earth. Changes vary with both latitude and season. Because of the different periodicities of variation for the three factors, the composite variations in solar radiation are very complex.

Although the connections are not obvious and direct, changes in the amount of solar radiation are thought to drive the growth and melting of major ice sheets. Over the last 750,000 years ice sheets have expanded into the midwestern United States at least 8 major times. The timing of the earlier of these advances is not well known.

Eccentricity

The Earth's orbit around the sun is not a circle, but rather it is an ellipse. The shape of the elliptical orbit, which is measured by its eccentricity, varies from between one and five percent through time.

The eccentricity affects the difference in the amounts of radiation the Earth's surface receives at aphelion and at perihelion. The effect of the radiation variation is to change the seasonal contrast in the northern and southern hemispheres. For example, when the orbit is highly elliptical, one hemisphere will have hot summers and cold winters; the other hemisphere will have warm summers and cool winters. When the orbit is nearly circular, both hemispheres will have similar seasonal contrasts in temperature.

Although the amount of change in radiation is very small (less than 0.2%), it is apparently extremely important in the expansion and melting of ice sheets.

The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit varies in a periodic manner. The primary periodicity is approximately 100,000 years.

Tilt

The Earth's axis is tilted with respect to its orbit around the sun. Today the tilt is approximately 23.5 degrees. The tilt varies from between 21.6 and 24.5 degrees in a periodic manner. A graph of the tilt over the last 750,000 years shows that the dominant period of this variation is approximately 41,000 years.

Changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis cause large changes in the seasonal distribution of radiation at high latitudes and in the length of the winter dark period at the poles. Changes in tilt have very little effect on low latitudes.

The effects of tilt on the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth are closely linked to the effects of precession. Variation in these two factors cause radiation changes of up to 15% at high latitudes. Radiation variation of this magnitude greatly influences the growth and melting of ice sheets.

Precession of the equinoxes

Twice a year, the equinoxes, the sun is positioned directly over the equator. Currently the equinoxes occur on approximately March 21 and September 21. However, because the Earth's axis of rotation "wobbles" (like a spinning top), the timing of the equinoxes changes . The change in the timing of the equinoxes is known as precession.

Although the timing of the equinoxes is not in itself important in determining climate, the timing of the Earth's aphelion and perihelion also changes. Like the timing of the equinoxes, the timing of the aphelion and perihelion is also affected by the wobble of the axis of rotation.

The changing aphelion and perihelion is important for climate because it affects the seasonal balance of radiation. For example, when perihelion falls in January the northern hemisphere winter and southern hemisphere summer are slightly warmer than the corresponding seasons in the opposite hemispheres.

The aphelion and perihelion change position on the orbit through a cycle of 360 degrees. The cycle has two periods of approximately 19,000 and 23,000 years. Together these combine to produce a generalized periodicity of about 22,000 years.

The effects of precession on the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth are closely linked to the effects of tilt. Variation in these two factors cause radiation changes of up to 15% at high latitudes. Radiation variation of this magnitude greatly influences the growth and melting of ice sheets.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 06, 2012, 07:16:22 PM
Its much better to speculate with "estimates" and make up "proxy indicators" than facts
Longer-term estimates of solar irradiance have been made using sunspot records and other so-called “proxy indicators,” such as the amount of carbon in tree rings. The most recent analyses of these proxies indicate that solar irradiance changes cannot plausibly account for more than 10 percent of the 20th century’s warming.

Using records from 1978 til now provides us nothing on a planet that has been in existence for 3.5 to 4.5 billion years 
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html (http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)

[url]http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast05jan_1/[/url] ([url]http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast05jan_1/[/url])

"Mars may once have been a very wet place. A host of clues remain from an earlier era, billions of years ago, hinting that the Red Planet was host to great rivers, lakes and perhaps even an ocean."

Then along came a few billion Martians that started burning coal to make electricity and turned their atmosphere into muck and the planet over heated, turning it into the giant dust ball it is today. Do we want to be next???

 ;D  sure glad it wasn't the Sun...

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 06, 2012, 08:13:06 PM
I don't usually copy/paste but this is very worth and completely on point.

Here is a link to Dr. Roy Spencer’s website (WARNING HE WORKED FOR NASA) maybe you will listen to his alternate ideas?  Probably not, it just isn’t the cool thing to do.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/ (http://www.drroyspencer.com/)

Dr. Spencer provides a 2000 year chart of global temps… been much warmer.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/ (http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/)

This graph shows the average of 18 non-tree ring proxies of temperature from 12 locations around the Northern Hemisphere, published by Craig Loehle in 2007, and later revised in 2008. It clearly shows that natural climate variability happens, and these proxies coincide with known events in human history.
 
Loehle also published in 2008 a paper that described why tree rings can not be trusted as a proxy for past temperature variations. Tree ring data have what is called a “divergence problem” in the late 20th Century where the tree ring data data suggests cooling, when in fact there has been warming. This, by itself, should cast serious doubt on whether tree ring reconstructions (such as Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” curve) can be used to estimate past global temperature variability.

Here is a link to the study described above:

http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/criag-loehle-on-the-divergence-problem/ (http://climateaudit.org/2008/11/30/criag-loehle-on-the-divergence-problem/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 07, 2012, 01:04:33 AM
There's more to it than just Co2.
There certainly is.

Please note that during this entire thread, not once have I stated any one reason for the climate change, I have merely continued to point out that our world is, in fact, getting warmer, and has continued to do so for the last few decades.

There are indeed many factors that could be contributing to the continuing escalation of world temperatures, CO2 is a very likely culprit, but to deny that the world temperatures, as a whole, are increasing, is to deny physical evidence itself.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 07, 2012, 01:48:19 AM
There certainly is.

Please note that during this entire thread, not once have I stated any one reason for the climate change, I have merely continued to point out that our world is, in fact, getting warmer, and has continued to do so for the last few decades.

There are indeed many factors that could be contributing to the continuing escalation of world temperatures, CO2 is a very likely culprit, but to deny that the world temperatures, as a whole, are increasing, is to deny physical evidence itself.

I do not think anyone has denied it in this thread at any point FB.  It is the Holy Hell the end of the world is around the corner BS that some of us have an issue with.  And the "you are ignorant if you don't believe it" attitude that comes with it is just too much to ignore.

Did you read Dr. Spencers work at all?  Did you catch the part about it taking us burning 5 years of fossil fuel consumption to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by just 1 part per 100,000.  Is it something to consider?  Sure, why not try to keep that number from climbing?  But to suggest that we are saturating the atmosphere with CO2 is ludicrous, and since CO2 is the big bad elephant in the room.....  Well you get the idea.  Temperatures have been much higher, and at times when humans were not pumping all that CO2 into the air, so why is it ONLY NOW that CO2 is the reason?

I don't deny the earth is warming right now, never have, however I do not find credible proof to indicate that human consumption of fossil fuel is the MAIN reason.  We have gone through a hotter cycle before (in documented times) what cuased it then, and just maybe could it be a contributing factor now?

Climate change science was born to PROVE to the government that it will be OK to put a punitive tax on fossil fuel consumption without any REAL evidence that CO2 emissions are the reason for global warming.  Climate change science is the framework for energy taxation, and the government will stifle alternative energy at every turn and at all costs so they can get the most GREENHOUSE TAX out of you as possible.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 07, 2012, 07:14:51 AM
There certainly is.

Please note that during this entire thread, not once have I stated any one reason for the climate change, I have merely continued to point out that our world is, in fact, getting warmer, and has continued to do so for the last few decades.

There are indeed many factors that could be contributing to the continuing escalation of world temperatures, CO2 is a very likely culprit, but to deny that the world temperatures, as a whole, are increasing, is to deny physical evidence itself.


Any factors that we all can come up with are likely not "controllable" ones, - at least to the extent that it would make a difference. (mass/volume)
Sit back and enjoy the warmth - as years from now it will swing back to the cooler side...  :)

Note: I didn't say don't stop attempts to keep pollution down, but I don't think we need to panic to the point of letting the Government use their TAX powers to start getting involved.   The US is past it's prime "Pollution" as our regulations have improved over years - as well as our industry moving to overseas where they don't regulate.
 
A surprise find emerged when climate was factored in: The U.S. was no longer among the world's worst CO2 emitters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/30/polluting-countries-ranked-carbon-dioxide-climate_n_1638650.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/30/polluting-countries-ranked-carbon-dioxide-climate_n_1638650.html)

We can't regulate or tax the biggest polluting countries - like China, India...  so hopefully all the junk science really is just that - Junk to keep researchers and their assistants busy, and we really are on a billion year cycle of warm/cool on this planet.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 07, 2012, 11:28:26 AM
You both state that it is "Junk" science and that governments around the world are using it to increase taxes. It has to be governments around the world mind you, because scientists around the world are coming to the same conclusions.

Hey, that's all fine and dandy, and I'll even agree with it, IF, you agree that the scientists that you back, could in fact be shills of the Oil and Coal industry, and that THEY are being financed to promote increased Carbon dioxide as the best thing since the extinction of the dinosaurs. But it sure does sound like big business to me, you know, blame the government for everything?

Oh, and Kudos to you JBS, for at first denigrating NASA, you know, the "Space People", then, turning around and lauding the guy that backs your position as a former NASA climatologist.

By the way, the increased Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, does more than just increase temperatures, it also acidifies the oceans, and while that only has had just some impact as of recent, the fact that the oceans acidity has jumped up 6% in the last 15 years, and is expected to continue to rise at an exponential rate.

But I digress.

It is clear that we will each pick who we want to believe.

I believe that there is something that we can do about it, but we won't, because the people with all the money, (i.e. big business) will continue to tell us that it's not their fault, and that it's the government trying to make off with our money again.

While you believe that there isn't anything we can do about it, and that the oil companies and coal industries are looking out for our best interests, by making sure that they, so therefore in turn we, don't have to pay more taxes.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 07, 2012, 05:04:15 PM
LOL...the right-wing climate change deniers bought the opinions of a few people willing to prostitute themselves for a buck.
The righties of MT are clear proof of the influence of big money...although a lifetime of indoctrination may have damaged their critical thinking to the point that ignoring facts in favor of propaganda from the right has become the norm for those parrots.
Quote
Spencer is an anthropogenic global warming denier who believes that climate change is not human caused and will have minimal impact.
Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute.
[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer[/url] ([url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Roy_Spencer[/url])

Quote
Stephen McIntyre is the primary author of the blog Climate Audit, noted for its many articles skeptical of climate change. He is a prominent critic of scientific studies of temperature records of the past 1000 years that show increasing global temperatures.
McIntyre was also a headliner at the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change, a gathering of climate change skeptics.
McIntyre is, according to the Wall Street Journal, a "semiretired Toronto minerals consultant" who has spent "two years and about $5,000 of his own money trying to double-check the influential graphic" known as the "hockey stick" that illustrates a reconstruction of average surface temperatures in the Northern hemisphere, created by University of Virginia climatologist Michael Mann. He does not have an advanced degree and has published two articles in the journal Energy and Environment, which has become a venue for skeptics and is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals.
[url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre[/url] ([url]http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steve_McIntyre[/url])

(http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Climate.jpg)


(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2011/04/img/koch_brothers-table.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 07, 2012, 05:15:55 PM
Extreme weather events forecast storm over climate change denial
>snippets<
Evidence supporting the existence of climate change is pummeling the United States this summer, from the mountain wildfires of Colorado to the recent "derecho" storm that left at least 23 dead and 1.4 million people without power from Illinois to Virginia. The phrase "extreme weather" flashes across television screens from coast to coast, but its connection to climate change is consistently ignored, if not outright mocked.

More than 2,000 heat records were broken last week around the US. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the government agency that tracks the data, reported that the spring of 2012 "marked the largest temperature departure from average of any season on record for the contiguous United States". These record temperatures in May, NOAA says, "have been so dramatically different that they establish a new 'neighborhood' apart from the historical year-to-date temperatures".
More here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/05/extreme-weather-forecast-storm-climate-change (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/05/extreme-weather-forecast-storm-climate-change)
Quote
Still don’t believe in climate change? Then you’re either deep in denial or delirious from the heat.

As I write this, the nation’s capital and its suburbs are in post-apocalypse mode. About one-fourth of all households have no electricity, the legacy of an unprecedented assault by violent thunderstorms Friday night. Things are improving: At the height of the power outage, nearly half the region was dark.

The line of storms, which killed at least 18 people as it raced from the Midwest to the sea, culminated a punishing day when the official temperature here reached 104 degrees, a record for June. Hurricane-force winds wreaked havoc with the lush tree canopy that is perhaps Washington’s most glorious amenity. One of my neighbors was lucky when a huge branch, headed for his roof, got snagged by a power line. Another neighbor lost a tree that fell into another tree that smashed an adjacent house, demolishing the second floor.

Yes, it’s always hot here in the summer – but not this hot. Yes, we always have thunderstorms – but never like these. (The cliché is true: It did sound like a freight train.)

According to scientists, climate change means not only that we will see higher temperatures but that there will be more extreme weather events like the one we just experienced. Welcome to the rest of our lives.

The problem for those who dismiss climate change as a figment of scientists’ imagination, or even as a crypto-socialist one-worldish plot to take away our God-given SUVs, is that the data are beginning to add up.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says the past winter was the fourth-warmest on record in the United States. To top that, spring – which meteorologists define as the months of March, April and May – was the warmest since recordkeeping began in 1895. If you don’t believe me or the scientists, ask a farmer whose planting seasons have gone awry.

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, which monitors global surface temperatures, reports that nine of the warmest 10 years on record have occurred since 2000. The warmest of all was 2010; last year was only the ninth-warmest, but global temperatures were still almost a full degree warmer than they were during the middle of the 20th century.

More here:
[url]http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120707/OPINION16/307070011/Scientists-farmers-know-climate-change-isn-t-cool?odyssey=mod[/url] ([url]http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120707/OPINION16/307070011/Scientists-farmers-know-climate-change-isn-t-cool?odyssey=mod[/url])|newswell|text|Opinion|p
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 09, 2012, 09:46:06 AM
LOL...the right-wing climate change deniers bought the opinions of a few people willing to prostitute themselves for a buck.
The righties of MT are clear proof of the influence of big money...although a lifetime of indoctrination may have damaged their critical thinking to the point that ignoring facts in favor of propaganda from the right has become the norm for those parrots.

So now Billionaires are responsible for Climate changes instead of good ole Mother Nature and the Universe (Sun, moon, planets)...

Nice try  - come back when your data is less biased (tree ring - interpretations), and includes more than a few years on a planet that is Billions of years old... 

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 09, 2012, 10:52:07 AM
There have been 372,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature records in the US since 1895.  84% of them were set when CO2 was below 350ppm.

Source:UNITED STATES HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 09, 2012, 11:23:46 AM
The Earth has warmed and cooled. That doesn't mean man isn't destroying it with pollution! Humans may or may not tip the scales climate-wise, but we still have to think about sustaining the Earth for future generations!

How does anyone know Mars wasn't destroyed by living creatures?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 09, 2012, 11:32:14 AM
There have been 372,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature records in the US since 1895.  84% of them were set when CO2 was below 350ppm.

Source:UNITED STATES HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK

So 16% of our high temperature records, (Higher than those even in the past 100 years) are now in the last 20 years
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg)

Guessing you won't even change your mind when that number reaches 100%
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 11:57:20 AM
There have been 372,989 correctly recorded daily high temperature records in the US since 1895.  84% of them were set when CO2 was below 350ppm.

Source:UNITED STATES HISTORICAL CLIMATOLOGY NETWORK
Umm, so...    This past two week set new ALL TIME never ever recorded there high temperatures for ANY day, not just THAT day. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 09, 2012, 12:14:25 PM
Fermi is an example of how industry can change the climate. Here is an old report I found interesting. Any new info on it would be appreciated.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9QPhq4nvQzcJ:deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/5205/5/bac3781.0001.001.pdf+fermi+monroe&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgZMQFqN9D0jHDMwwJWaexFyPSxZ6wFtwE0DWqZXz9R-6VovzmE1Iuyg4fMPe4GKWV4dWydlCoq_jdHnd9-O1oLGmIVjK0k2qRU5vHCAHA7abGlA28McpLqS22wCGSzJScMeqaD&sig=AHIEtbTUv6S42j-3huCUvy5EN9V_-dbl9Q

The Prediction of Prolonged Temperature Inversions Near the Western Shore of Lake Erie
Maurice E. Graves
Technical Report No. 6
ORA PROJECT 03632
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
November 1962
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 09, 2012, 12:36:43 PM
FB,
Which number are you referring too?  Not that it matters.  It won't change my mind.  Junk science is junk science.  Science by consensus is not science.

Duck,
ANY day you say?  And how far back does this data go.......
Not back far enough to mean a dang thing.

As the Prof mentioned earlier in this post, we can find data and articles to dispute everything you claim about the climate.  It's all a way to take my money and give it to someone else to further a non-existant problem with unworkable solutions.

So 16% of our high temperature records, (Higher than those even in the past 100 years) are now in the last 20 years
([url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg[/url])

Guessing you won't even change your mind when that number reaches 100%
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on July 09, 2012, 01:26:54 PM
FB,
Which number are you referring too?  Not that it matters.  It won't change my mind.  Junk science is junk science.  Science by consensus is not science.

Duck,
ANY day you say?  And how far back does this data go.......
Not back far enough to mean a dang thing.

As the Prof mentioned earlier in this post, we can find data and articles to dispute everything you claim about the climate.  It's all a way to take my money and give it to someone else to further a non-existant problem with unworkable solutions.

Wow....the ignorance is just astounding.  The science you call "junk science" is anything but that.  There is a direct, and obvious, correlation to increased green house gasses and inscreased temperature change.  That's basic scientific knowledge.  If you want to destroy the world and use up it's finite resources....well I can't say what I want to on that.

Do you realize that the earth is a finite resource?  Do you realize that there's only so much fossil fuel that will go around?  Do you realize that we're destroying our HOME at an insane rate?  That should be enough motivation for you people.  You're taking a dump on your own floors by not recognizing the FACTS that are climate change.  As far as I'm concerned you can crap all over your house, but if I'm living with you, I'm not going to let it happen. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 09, 2012, 01:43:18 PM
Not that it matters.  It won't change my mind.
Then why should I bother? It's obvious you've made your mind up, and no amount of data or statistical analysis or anything else will ever change your mind. If it really did matter, the number would be the amount of record temperatures (100%) that occurred AFTER the climate reached 350 ppmv of CO2.


Quote
As the Prof mentioned earlier in this post, we can find data and articles to dispute everything you claim about the climate.  It's all a way to take my money and give it to someone else to further a non-existant problem with unworkable solutions.
And as I stated, if the data that I have is garnered by over 90% of the scientists all over the globe, all being funded by big bad government(s), then the scientists that you have garnered are all being funded by oil conglomerates hell bent on making profits, and damn everyone who gets in their way.

By the way, do you believe in the Theory of Relativity?

Or do you believe in the Theory of Evolution?

Heliocentric theory?    the Earth orbits the Sun
Cell theory?    living things are made of cells
Atomic theory?  matter is composed of atoms

I mean, these are just theories right?

Theories acclaimed by most scientists as being the most likely of the theories that are presented, and have been for quite some time, yet can they be proven, or are they just science by consensus?

No matter, you've already stated that NOTHING will change your mind.

Ok, what PROOF is it that you require? Evidently, you have some idea of what empirical evidence that would finally make you believe.

What is it?
Your answer is NOTHING.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 01:53:46 PM
FB,
Which number are you referring too? Not that it matters. It won't change my mind. 

You are right, a closed mind is a closed mind and no amount of FACT will dissuade what you are told to think.

 
Quote
Junk science is junk science. Science by consensus is not science.

I was interested by this.  All of a sudden the right wing is all into the phrase “junk science”.  Turns out to be a Faux news origination crapola.  Nice that ya’all repeat blindly what faux tells you to.

Quote
Duck,
ANY day you say? And how far back does this data go.......
Not back far enough to mean a dang thing.

There ya go... since we have only recorded temperatures for a couple hundred years, then any day before that COULD have been hotter, but you forget that they might not have.  Just as possible.  But that many, many places are hotter than ever before SINCE WE RECORDED THEM then it means nothing to closed minds.

Quote
As the Prof mentioned earlier in this post, we can find data and articles to dispute everything you claim about the climate. It's all a way to take my money and give it to someone else to further a non-existant problem with unworkable solutions.

So, your doctor says you have what looks like skin cancer and you disagree, go to 200 doctors that also agree with the first, that is just junk science by consensus according to you.  Then you finally find one that says it could be just a mole and whoppee you were right.  Then you die of skin cancer... See, that’s the thing, if we all listen to those with closed minds, then we do nothing.  If we attempt to do something we might head off what is happening.  The difference is clear, do nothing and the cost could be the extinction of the human race.  Do something and the cost could be money.  OMG  money is more than people so the answer is clear.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on July 09, 2012, 03:00:08 PM
Well, I don't know about all you people on this thread but there has been no climate change in my yard for days!  It has been hot and sticky day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day after day.  :P
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 09, 2012, 03:20:33 PM
If we attempt to do something we might head off what is happening.  The difference is clear, do nothing and the cost could be the extinction of the human race.  Do something and the cost could be money.  OMG  money is more than people so the answer is clear.



"If we attempt to do something".......................like what?

"to head off what is happening".........................what is happening?

I've had this discussion with Baggins:

http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25128.15 (http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25128.15)

Here's one post:
------------------------------
I can't see any problems. Yet you can't identify the problem, or the solution, or the cost.

You see it as:
Problem - climate change
Solution - Don't burn fossil fuels, use 1 sheet of tp.
Cost - Fork over whatever you have left

I say we've been better guardians of the earth than ever before.  We're not belching out black smoke like we used to, nor are we dumping into the rivers anymore (or not as much).  We recycle. And the preventative maintenance list goes on. 

But to say the global temperature change of whatever teeny number you come up with is a problem, and I say it's not. 

Solution - We've spent billions and 40+ years trying to justify wind and solar.  It's just not there yet (economically practical).  When it is, we'll embrace it.

Cost - you can't put a cost to this issue.  Period.  And you have no way of knowing if anything we do will change a thing.  One solar flare, one volcanic eruption, one earthquake (Japanese flotsam?).  Any one of these natural disasters could change the earth's temperature.

Junk science.  That's all your promoting.  I'm not buying it. The earth is pretty resilient.
-------------------------------

I had extensive posts with Baggins.  I'm not going to rehash all the same stuff. And the so-called FACTS have been fudged beyond usefulness.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 03:48:39 PM
"If we attempt to do something".......................like what?

"to head off what is happening".........................what is happening?

I've had this discussion with Baggins:

[url]http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25128.15[/url] ([url]http://monroetalks.com/forum/index.php?topic=25128.15[/url])

Here's one post:
------------------------------
I can't see any problems. Yet you can't identify the problem, or the solution, or the cost.

You see it as:
Problem - climate change
Solution - Don't burn fossil fuels, use 1 sheet of tp.
Cost - Fork over whatever you have left

The answer is simple for either side.  For you it is keep your head buried under the sand and repeat the lies of those you idolize.  For others it is to do something... anything other than play pretend nothing is wrong and the problem will just go away on its own. 

The cost is equally easy. Money or human life extinction.  What would you do if you were told you had cancer?  Would you spend all the money you had trying to reverse it, or would you just hoard your cash and die quick?  Please don’t answer that, I am too afraid of the answer.

Quote
I say we've been better guardians of the earth than ever before. We're not belching out black smoke like we used to, nor are we dumping into the rivers anymore (or not as much). We recycle. And the preventative maintenance list goes on.

Ahhh, so there it is, you are the expert and only one and your OPINION outweighs  all of those that studied their whole lives and know what they are talking about.  After all they disagree with your view of the sand under the ground so they are ALL wrong.

Quote
But to say the global temperature change of whatever teeny number you come up with is a problem, and I say it's not.
 
and you are betting the lives of everyone, and those that would have eventually been born on your under the sand opinion.

Quote
Solution - We've spent billions and 40+ years trying to justify wind and solar. It's just not there yet (economically practical). When it is, we'll embrace it.

Prove it.  Just because you CHOOSE to ignore fact, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

Quote
Cost - you can't put a cost to this issue. Period. And you have no way of knowing if anything we do will change a thing. One solar flare, one volcanic eruption, one earthquake (Japanese flotsam?). Any one of these natural disasters could change the earth's temperature.


Really? ? ?  That is what your so called NOT JUNK SCIENCE tells you?  That an earthquake can make the planet warmer year after year?  Your non junk science experts tell you that a single solar flare can raise temperatures of the whole planet every year and every next year?  Your not junk science experts tell you that a volcano will raise the temperature of the whole planet every year no matter how cold the volcano is now? 

Quote
Junk science. That's all your promoting. I'm not buying it. The earth is pretty resilient.

The right wing noise machine sure is pushing the “junk science” lies well.    Science by consensus... LOL  I guess that is why you float in space instead of stay on the ground.  That damn science of consensus is just junk science and gravity does not exist.  The hilarious thing is the ones claiming junk science use the REAL junk science.  But, if you had an open mind you would see that.  Whatever, you listen to your idols that tell you what to think and don’t you worry any over it.
-------------------------------

Quote
I had extensive posts with Baggins. I'm not going to rehash all the same stuff. And the so-called FACTS have been fudged beyond usefulness.

Yep, and no matter how good the facts, you still keep your closed mind firmly buried in the sand.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 04:31:44 PM
John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton of PR Watch argue that the term "junk science" has come to be used to deride scientific findings that stand in the way of short-term corporate profits. In their book Trust Us, We're Experts (2001), they write that industries have launched multi-million-dollar campaigns to position certain theories as "junk science" in the popular mind, often failing to employ the scientific method themselves. For example, the tobacco industry has used the term "junk science" to describe research demonstrating the harmful effects of smoking and second-hand smoke, through the vehicle of various "astroturf groups".

The term "junk science" was popularized by Fox News commentator Steven Milloy, who used it to attack the results of credible scientific research on global warming, ozone depletion, passive smoking and many other topics. The credibility of Milloy's website junkscience.com was questioned by Paul D. Thacker, a writer for The New Republic, in the wake of evidence that Milloy had received funding from Philip Morris, RJR Tobacco, and Exxon Mobil.[10][11][12] Thacker also noted that Milloy was receiving almost $100,000 a year in consulting fees from Philip Morris while he criticized the evidence regarding the hazards of second-hand smoke as "junk science". Following the publication of this article the Cato Institute, which had hosted the junkscience.com site, ceased its association with the site and removed Milloy from its list of adjunct scholars.

Another recipient of corporate funding, from both the tobacco industry and ExxonMobil, has been Fred Singer.[citation needed] His overall position is one of distrust of government regulation, and that market principles and incentives are sufficient to protect the environment and conserve resources. In the 1970s, he downplayed the energy crisis.[citation needed] In several papers in the 1990s and 2000s he questioned the link between UV-B and melanoma rates,[citation needed] and that between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss.[citation needed] He has questioned the link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer,[citation needed] and has been an outspoken opponent of the mainstream scientific view on climate change. Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway named Singer in their book, Merchants of Doubt, as one of three contrarian physicists—along with Fred Seitz and Bill Nierenberg—who regularly position themselves as skeptics, with their views being given equal time by the media.[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junk_science)

Those that claim “junk science” are just repeating the lies propagated by big corporations for short term MONEY.  It is just an attempt to get stupid people to believe that the real experts are wrong when they ARE NOT.

Faux news is doing such a bang up job lying to the public isn’t it?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 09, 2012, 04:42:47 PM
The answer is simple for either side.  For you it is keep your head buried under the sand and repeat the lies of those you idolize.  For others it is to do something... anything other than play pretend nothing is wrong and the problem will just go away on its own. 

The cost is equally easy. Money or human life extinction.  What would you do if you were told you had cancer?  Would you spend all the money you had trying to reverse it, or would you just hoard your cash and die quick?  Please don’t answer that, I am too afraid of the answer.


The answer is simple, but you can't identify the problem.
The cost is easy, but you can't put a number on it.
And you have no solution.

So you've got nothing.



Ahhh, so there it is, you are the expert and only one and your OPINION outweighs  all of those that studied their whole lives and know what they are talking about.  After all they disagree with your view of the sand under the ground so they are ALL wrong.


Those aren't opinions (the fact that we are better guardians than ever before).  What did I write in those 3 sentences that warranted your above reply?  But I'm to believe experts who fudge their data to promote their agenda on my dime?



and you are betting the lives of everyone, and those that would have eventually been born on your under the sand opinion.



I'm not betting on anything.  I'm saying we are doing plenty.  Just not enough to suit you.



Prove it.  Just because you CHOOSE to ignore fact, doesn’t mean it isn’t.

What is it you want me to prove? 






Really? ? ?  That is what your so called NOT JUNK SCIENCE tells you?  That an earthquake can make the planet warmer year after year?  Your non junk science experts tell you that a single solar flare can raise temperatures of the whole planet every year and every next year?  Your not junk science experts tell you that a volcano will raise the temperature of the whole planet every year no matter how cold the volcano is now? 


I don't need science, or junk science to tell me that a natural disaster could change the environment.


 
The right wing noise machine sure is pushing the “junk science” lies well.    Science by consensus... LOL  I guess that is why you float in space instead of stay on the ground.  That damn science of consensus is just junk science and gravity does not exist.  The hilarious thing is the ones claiming junk science use the REAL junk science.  But, if you had an open mind you would see that.  Whatever, you listen to your idols that tell you what to think and don’t you worry any over it.
-------------------------------
Yep, and no matter how good the facts, you still keep your closed mind firmly buried in the sand.


You keep spouting right wing talking points, when it has no bearing on this discussion.   You think i'm using junk science to prove something, when I'm not trying to prove anything.  It's you green freaks that can't prove squat.

You keep mentioning facts that have been dubunked.

Why don't you get your head out of the sand and look over some of the links I had posted.

Again, you can't identify the problem, or the solution, or the cost.


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 09, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
Here you go Duck, try this one:  http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/)

I know it's not wikipedia, so your browser may not work.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 09, 2012, 04:58:40 PM
Wow....the ignorance is just astounding.  The science you call "junk science" is anything but that.  There is a direct, and obvious, correlation to increased green house gasses and inscreased temperature change.  That's basic scientific knowledge.  If you want to destroy the world and use up it's finite resources....well I can't say what I want to on that.

Do you realize that the earth is a finite resource?  Do you realize that there's only so much fossil fuel that will go around?  Do you realize that we're destroying our HOME at an insane rate?  That should be enough motivation for you people.  You're taking a dump on your own floors by not recognizing the FACTS that are climate change.  As far as I'm concerned you can crap all over your house, but if I'm living with you, I'm not going to let it happen. 

Your entire post is conjecture.

If their is a direct correlation between the consu,ption of greenhouse gases and the warming of the earth then what caused the spike in the 1400's?  Greenhouse gases?  And that spike was much warmer.

The earth does not have "finite" resources, that is another myth.  We still have no idea of the amount of resources we do have and fossil fuels are a renewable source.  Ever wonder what happens to all that material that decomposes into the ground?  Do we use too much?  Probably and I say lets use other forms of it.  But I will not favor crippling the economy and taxing the middle class into oblivion (because lets face it, that is where EVERY tax increase lands regardless of its intended target) so we can continue to fund the junk science called the end of the earth industry.

And enough with the endless faux news BS rebuttals with no substance.  Very tiresome.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 05:18:23 PM


The answer is simple, but you can't identify the problem.
The cost is easy, but you can't put a number on it.
And you have no solution.

So you've got nothing.

The problem has ben identified, you just choose to ignore FACT.
The cost is the extinction of the human race.  How much money is that worth?
The solutions are multiple and have been stated by many here.  Again, you CHOOSE to ignore fact.

Quote
Those aren't opinions (the fact that we are better guardians than ever before).  What did I write in those 3 sentences that warranted your above reply?  But I'm to believe experts who fudge their data to promote their agenda on my dime?

Quote
I say we've been better guardians of the earth than ever before. We're not belching out black smoke like we used to, nor are we dumping into the rivers anymore (or not as much). We recycle. And the preventative maintenance list goes on.
Your OPINION is that we pollute less than horrendously bad as in the past.  Wow, so nice.  Does your OPINION include all of time as well like your historical record high temperature too?

Experts that fudge data?  You mean as claimed by those that got caught fudging the data PURPOSEFULLY to try and claim fact is not fact? 

Quote
I'm not betting on anything.  I'm saying we are doing plenty.  Just not enough to suit you.

Oh, but you are.  You are betting that the experts are all wrong and you and the junk science distorters are right.  If you are wrong we all pay with life.  If those that understand science are wrong, we end up with clean cheap energy.

Quote
What is it you want me to prove?
Quote
We've spent billions and 40+ years trying to justify wind and solar. It's just not there yet (economically practical). When it is, we'll embrace it.
Both parts of your claim.  That 40 years has proven that wind and solar are economically impractical.  From real science please, not the faux news liars.  And then the proof that the right will ever accept it until after it is done and proves correct.

 
Quote
I don't need science, or junk science to tell me that a natural disaster could change the environment.
 

Your clam is that those COULD be a reason we are warming, which does admit that we are by the way.  The problem is you use temporary events to try to explain non ending results.  Besides, I have never heard of an earthquake ever raising temperatures even a half degree for even the short time of or after one.


Quote
You keep spouting right wing talking points, when it has no bearing on this discussion.   You think i'm using junk science to prove something, when I'm not trying to prove anything.  It's you green freaks that can't prove squat.

It has absolutely everything to do with it.  Big corps and faux news, the right wing echo machine has paid people to make up LIES in an attempt to get stupid people from listening to true experts that have real facts.  You are using “junk science” in a false attempt to claim that real science and real fact are falsities.

Quote
You keep mentioning facts that have been dubunked.
  Just because you swallow the lies doesn’t actually debunk anything.  When more than 90% of all of the real experts agree that many things are actual fact, it is pretty good data.  When a big oil company hires stooges to make up lies to supposedly debunk them it is not good science in any way.

Quote
Why don't you get your head out of the sand and look over some of the links I had posted.

You really think I am afraid of reading what the oil companies paid to have said?  You think I am afraid to look at what both sides say?  Well, maybe you do, but that is not reality either.

Quote
Again, you can't identify the problem, or the solution, or the cost.

If you repeat a lie often enough, some stupid people will swallow it whole.  The problem is identified, even if you refuse to look beyond what faux news tells you.  The solutions have been presented, and still you listen to your right wing handles on what to think and what lies to swallow whole.  The cost is so great that you won’t even admit that it is possible.  Oh, you mean money, well, I guess your corporate people might still be around with all the money and no people to exploit.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 05:20:01 PM
Here you go Duck, try this one:  [url]http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/[/url] ([url]http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/[/url])

I know it's not wikipedia, so your browser may not work.

Thanks I will read them at another time.  Wen you going to read the real experts so you are balanced?  You quote lies well, but refuse real facts.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 05:45:02 PM
(http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig6-10b.png)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html)

The Medieval Warm Epoch was only the northern hemisphere and we passed that warming a long time ago.  But, I am sure that you will call that “junk science” since it is contrary to the faux news spin.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 05:52:07 PM
Global warming deniers same as those who argue tobacco is good for your health
By Peter Goodman / For the Sun-News
Posted: 07/08/2012 02:28:10 AM MDT

Widespread record high temperatures and record storms suggest a question to ask Steve Pearce or his people:
Does Rep. Pearce recognize yet that our climate is changing in dangerous ways and that our activities at least contribute to this change?
The last time I looked, Pearce called climate change "something that can't be validated." As support for that view, he offered a clown from Canada whom the Calgary Herald accurately described as "a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than a practicing scientist."
Since then, some interesting things have happened.
One was a conference in Santa Fe sponsored by "Global Warming skeptics." Global warming skeptic and prominent scientist Richard Muller reported on a two-year study he'd done that was partially funded by the Charles Koch Foundation, a major funder of global warming deniers and Tea Party groups. (The Koch brothers run a large company that produces sizeable greenhouse gas emissions, and they oppose governmental efforts to limit or regulate those emissions and dent their sizeable fortunes.)
Muller was troubled by "Climategate," the flap over hacked e-mails of British scientists that seemed to cast doubt on their objectivity. Using climate-change-skeptic theories, Muller retraced their measurements to disprove them — but found out their measurements were right. His numbers match those of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA.
The skeptics' theories involved claims that weather stations' unreliability and the "heat islands" created by cities were creating an inaccurate appearance of global warming that accurate measurements would disprove. Muller now says that while those were reasonable questions, his figures validate previous figures showing the earth has warmed significantly since the 1950s.
That is, a reputable scientist motivated by his skepticism about climate change, and funded by folks who hoped he'd poke serious holes in the general view, took a hard look and found that the scientific numbers were right.
Of course, scientific consensus can be wrong. Most reputable scientists in 1902 doubted man would ever be able to fly, electric shock therapy is no longer the go-to treatment for emotional problems, and eggs are either terribly dangerous or wonderfully healthy depending on the decade.
Still, there's no apparent reason to suspect the kind of scientific conspiracy some of Mr. Pearce's allies allege. Unlike the days when science said the world was flat, the Catholic Church doesn't have an Inquisition terrorizing scientists who might wish to dissent. Further, although Mr. Pearce's allies like to claim scientists hew to the majority view to get grant money, the real money is on the other side. Pearce backers such as the Koch Brothers will fork over vast sums to anyone who can concoct a remotely viable objection to the scientific consensus that climate change is a serious and imminent problem.
With an impressive array of scientists on one side, along with the U.S. military, and few or no credentialed scientists on the other, one naturally wonders why Mr. Pearce still doubts global warming. Equally naturally, we notice that his position, while unsupported by the evidence to date, is a convenient one for his most powerful financial backers.
Fact is, Representative Pearce is beginning to look like some North Carolina congressman still inshttp://www.lcsun-news.com/las_cruces-opinion/ci_21031263/their-view-global-warming-deniers-same-those-whoisting that tobacco is harmless to smokers.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 05:54:07 PM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 05:57:02 PM
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world—including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers and rising sea levels—all point to the fact that climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.

The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, involving more than 2,500 scientists from more than 130 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 nations, as well as those of China, India and Brazil.

Who are the climate change deniers?
 Despite the international scientific community's consensus on climate change, a small number of critics continue to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change "skeptics" or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly—for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public and policy-makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.



Not surprisingly, the deniers have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to, in the words of one leaked memo, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
 
Over the years, the deniers have employed a wide range of arguments against taking action on climate change, some of which contradict each other. For example, they have claimed that:
 • Climate change is not occurring
• The global climate is actually getting colder
• The global climate is getting warmer, but not because of human activities
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but this will create greater benefits than costs
• The global climate is getting warmer, in part because of human activities, but the impacts are not sufficient to require any policy response

After 15 years of increasingly definitive scientific studies attesting to the reality and significance of global climate change, the deniers' tactics have shifted. Many deniers no longer deny that climate change is happening, but instead argue that the cost of taking action is too high—or even worse, that it is too late to take action. All of these arguments are false and are rejected by the scientific community at large.

To gain an understanding of the level of scientific consensus on climate change, one study examined every article on climate change published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over a 10-year period. Of the 928 articles on climate change the authors found, not one of them disagreed with the consensus position that climate change is happening and is human-induced.

These findings contrast dramatically with the popular media's reporting on climate change. One study analyzed coverage of climate change in four influential American newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times and Wall Street Journal) over a 14-year period. It found that more than half of the articles discussing climate change gave equal weight to the scientifically discredited views of the deniers.

This discrepancy is largely due to the media's drive for "balance" in reporting. Journalists are trained to identify one position on any issue, and then seek out a conflicting position, providing both sides with roughly equal attention. Unfortunately, this "balance" does not always correspond with the actual prevalence of each view within society, and can result in unintended bias. This has been the case with reporting on climate change, and as a result, many people believe that the reality of climate change is still being debated by scientists when it is not.

While some level of debate is useful when looking at major social problems, society must eventually move on and actually address the issue. To do nothing about the problem of climate change is akin to letting a fire burn down a building because the precise temperature of the flames is unknown, or to not address the problem of smoking because one or two doctors still claim that it does not cause lung cancer. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) acknowledges, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous consequences in the climate system.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/ (http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 06:23:49 PM
Willard Anthony Watts[1] (born 1958)[2] is an American meteorologist[3][4] (AMS seal holder, retired),[5][1] president of IntelliWeather Inc.,[6] editor of the blog, Watts Up With That?,[7] and founder of the SurfaceStations.org project that documents the siting of weather stations across the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_(blogger))

He is funded by the Heartland Institute “an American conservative and libertarian[2] public policy think tank based in Chicago, which advocates free market policies.[3][4][5][6] The Institute is designated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit by the Internal Revenue Service and has a full-time staff of 40, including editors and senior fellows.[7] The Institute was founded in 1984 and conducts research and advocacy work on issues including government spending, taxation, healthcare, tobacco policy, hydraulic fracturing[8] global warming, information technology, and free-market environmentalism.
In the 1990s, the group worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question the science linking secondhand smoke to health risks, and to lobby against government public-health reforms.[9][10][11] More recently, the Institute has focused on questioning the science of climate change, and was described by the New York Times as "the primary American organization pushing climate change skepticism."[12] The Institute has sponsored meetings of climate change skeptics,[13] and has been reported to promote public school curricula challenging the scientific consensus on climate change.[14]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute)

Just finding who is backing OS’s website recommendation before I start reading.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 09, 2012, 06:28:51 PM
The first I clicked.


Dr. Curry gets props from the skeptical community because she had the courage to invite Steve McIntyre to give a presentation at Georgia Tech, for which she took criticism. Her letter is insightful and addresses troubling issues. We can all learn something from it. – Anthony
 
An open letter to graduate students and young scientists in fields related to climate research – By Dr. Judith A. Curry, Georgia Tech
 
Based upon feedback that I’ve received from graduate students at Georgia Tech, I suspect that you are confused, troubled, or worried by what you have been reading about ClimateGate and the contents of the hacked CRU emails. After spending considerable time reading the hacked emails and other posts in the blogosphere, I wrote an essay that calls for greater transparency in climate data and other methods used in climate research. The essay is posted over at climateaudit.org (you can read it at http://camirror.wordpress.com/ (http://camirror.wordpress.com/) 2009/ 11/ 22/ curry-on-the-credibility-of-climate-research/ ).
 
What has been noticeably absent so far in the ClimateGate discussion is a public reaffirmation by climate researchers of our basic research values: the rigors of the scientific method (including reproducibility), research integrity and ethics, open minds, and critical thinking. Under no circumstances should we ever sacrifice any of these values; the CRU emails, however, appear to violate them.
 
My motivation for communicating on this issue in the blogosphere comes from emails that I received from Georgia Tech graduate students and alums. As a result of my post on climateaudit, I started receiving emails from graduate students from other universities. I post the content of one of the emails here, without reference to the student’s name or institution:
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Dr. Curry,
 
I am a young climate researcher (just received my master’s degree from xxx University) and have been very troubled by the emails that were released from CRU. I just want to applaud and support your response on climateaudit.org [95% of it :) ]. Your statement represents exactly how I have felt as I slowly enter this community. The content of some of the emails literally made me stop and wonder if I should continue with my PhD applications for fall 2010, in this science. I was so troubled by how our fellow scientists within the climate community have been dealing with opposing voices (on both sides). I hope we can all learn from this and truly feel that we are going to need voices like yours to fix these problems in the coming months and years.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the heart of this issue is how climate researchers deal with skeptics. I have served my time in the “trenches of the climate war” in the context of the debate on hurricanes and global warming. There is no question that there is a political noise machine in existence that feeds on research and statements from climate change skeptics. In grappling with this issue, I would argue that there are three strategies for dealing with skeptics:
 
 
 

1. Retreat into the ivory tower
 2. Circle the wagons/point guns outward: ad hominem/appeal to motive attacks; appeal to authority; isolate the enemy through lack of access to data; peer review process
 3. Take the “high ground:” engage the skeptics on our own terms (conferences, blogosphere); make data/methods available/transparent; clarify the uncertainties; openly declare our values
 
Most scientists retreat into the ivory tower. The CRU emails reflect elements of the circling of wagons strategy. For the past 3 years, I have been trying to figure out how to engage skeptics effectively in the context of #3, which I think is a method that can be effective in countering the arguments of skeptics, while at the same time being consistent with our core research values. Some of the things that I’ve tried in my quest to understand skeptics and more effectively counter misinformation include posting at skeptical blogs, such as climateaudit, and inviting prominent skeptics to give seminars at Georgia Tech. I have received significant heat from some colleagues for doing this (I’ve been told that I am legitimizing the skeptics and misleading my students), but I think we need to try things like this if we are to develop effective strategies for dealing with skeptics and if we are to teach students to think critically.
 
If climate science is to uphold core research values and be credible to public, we need to respond to any critique of data or methodology that emerges from analysis by other scientists. Ignoring skeptics coming from outside the field is inappropriate; Einstein did not start his research career at Princeton, but rather at a post office. I’m not implying that climate researchers need to keep defending against the same arguments over and over again. Scientists claim that they would never get any research done if they had to continuously respond to skeptics. The counter to that argument is to make all of your data, metadata, and code openly available. Doing this will minimize the time spent responding to skeptics; try it! If anyone identifies an actual error in your data or methodology, acknowledge it and fix the problem. Doing this would keep molehills from growing into mountains that involve congressional hearings, lawyers, etc.
 
So with this reaffirmation of core climate research values, I encourage you to discuss the ideas and issues raised here with your fellow students and professors. Your professors may disagree with me; there are likely to be many perspectives on this. I hope that others will share their wisdom and provide ideas and guidance for dealing with these issues. Spend some time perusing the blogosphere (both skeptical and pro AGW blogs) to get a sense of the political issues surrounding our field. A better understanding of the enormous policy implications of our field should imbue in all of us a greater responsibility for upholding the highest standards of research ethics. Hone your communications skills; we all need to communicate more effectively. Publish your data as supplementary material or post on a public website. And keep your mind open and sharpen your critical thinking skills. My very best wishes to you in your studies, research, and professional development. I look forward to engaging with you in a dialogue on this topic.
 
Judith Curry
 Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences
 Georgia Institute of Technology
 
References:
 
My past public statements on climate change can be found at my website http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/policy.htm (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/climate/policy.htm)
 
My paper on “Mixing politics and science in testing the hypothesis that greenhouse warming is a causing an increase in global hurricane intensity” can be found at
 http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currydoc/Curry_BAMS87.pdf)
 
My presentation on the integrity of climate research can be found at
 http://www.pacinst.org/ (http://www.pacinst.org/) topics/ integrity_of_science/ AGU_IntegrityofScience_Curry.pdf

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/an-open-letter-from-dr-judith-curry-on-climate-science/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 09, 2012, 08:28:52 PM
If we were to take all the BILLIONS of dollars given to the Oil and Coal industries, and instead invest those same dollars into Green industries (Solar and wind) at least we would be making an attempt to stop polluting, we would be investing in new technologies, and creating new jobs.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ell on July 09, 2012, 08:32:54 PM
Fermi is an example of how industry can change the climate. Here is an old report I found interesting. Any new info on it would be appreciated.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9QPhq4nvQzcJ:deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/5205/5/bac3781.0001.001.pdf+fermi+monroe&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgZMQFqN9D0jHDMwwJWaexFyPSxZ6wFtwE0DWqZXz9R-6VovzmE1Iuyg4fMPe4GKWV4dWydlCoq_jdHnd9-O1oLGmIVjK0k2qRU5vHCAHA7abGlA28McpLqS22wCGSzJScMeqaD&sig=AHIEtbTUv6S42j-3huCUvy5EN9V_-dbl9Q

The Prediction of Prolonged Temperature Inversions Near the Western Shore of Lake Erie
Maurice E. Graves
Technical Report No. 6
ORA PROJECT 03632
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
November 1962

Well, that takes care of Fermi I.  What have you got to show Fermi II is causing temperature inversions in Lake Erie?  Fermi II uses closed loop cooling, using lake water for make up.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on July 09, 2012, 08:42:38 PM
If we were to take all the BILLIONS of dollars given to the Oil and Coal industries, and instead invest those same dollars into Green industries (Solar and wind) at least we would be making an attempt to stop polluting, we would be investing in new technologies, and creating new jobs.
Let's see; half a billion to Solyndra didn't turn out too well,wind farms almost always run into the NIMBY's, and solar on a scale to take the place of one coal-fired plant would need more acres than would be available in the area where the power would actually be needed. NEXT!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on July 09, 2012, 08:52:31 PM
Well, that takes care of Fermi I.  What have you got to show Fermi II is causing temperature inversions in Lake Erie?  Fermi II uses closed loop cooling, using lake water for make up.
Warning; facts is not welcome here. This is all about abolishing everything that makes power for us, and going back to the good old days, when all our power came from solar and wind, doncha know.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 09, 2012, 11:32:01 PM
Your entire post is conjecture.

If their is a direct correlation between the consu,ption of greenhouse gases and the warming of the earth then what caused the spike in the 1400's?  Greenhouse gases?  And that spike was much warmer.

Fun fact: Volcanoes can **** with the climate. No, that doesn't mean you can drive your Humvee on two dollar gas forever.

Quote
The earth does not have "finite" resources, that is another myth.

Citation needed.

Quote
fossil fuels are a renewable source.

If you plan on living to the ripe old age of 65 million, yes. Problem: We're using fossil fuels faster than they are "renewed" by being trapped in the ground. There are quantifiably (not subjectively, not magically, not liberally) less fossil fuels in the ground today than there was 100 years ago.

Quote
Ever wonder what happens to all that material that decomposes into the ground?

Yes, 65 million years later, some of it is miraculously preserved in some form of compressed hydrocarbons. Not next year, not next week, and definitely not in your lifetime.

Quote
  Do we use too much?  Probably and I say lets use other forms of it.

Why bother? Obviously climate control's a myth and it's the evil socialists controlling the fossil fuel supply. Burn your house down every year, there's infinite supplies for new housing.


Quote
  But I will not favor crippling the economy and taxing the middle class into oblivion (because lets face it, that is where EVERY tax increase lands regardless of its intended target) so we can continue to fund the junk science called the end of the earth industry.

If I ignore the problems we face, it will go away. For instance: The air quality in 1900 next to a coal plant was 4000% cleaner than it is in my house now. Why? SCIENCE. If you tell me otherwise, it's junk science. Therefore, SCIENCE says that coal plants in 1900 were 4000% cleaner than they are now.

Quote
And enough with the endless faux news BS rebuttals with no substance.  Very tiresome.

Your mother wears hydrocarbon army boots.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 10, 2012, 06:09:23 PM
If we were to take all the BILLIONS of dollars given to the Oil and Coal industries, and instead invest those same dollars into Green industries (Solar and wind) at least we would be making an attempt to stop polluting, we would be investing in new technologies, and creating new jobs.

On this we agree.  No oil subsidies.

If alternatives can prove viable I have no trouble with subsidizing them to get it up and running.  I am one of the folks who altough he disagrees with your thoughts on climate change, also realizes that the coal and oil companies use government to shackle to creation of viable alternatives.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 10, 2012, 09:10:48 PM
LF,

You are a funny bird....  You tell me citation needed, then go on to ramble off a bunch of stuff without citation.

Funny you bring up volcanoes... have we not had a few pretty spectacular eruptions in recent past?  You know during your period of data that we should all accept as the PROOF?  Yup 25 years of data for a planet millions of years old WITH volcanic activity inclusive... nope that is definately PROOF it is just the humans fault.

You have no idea how much stuff began the magical process of decomposition 65 million years ago... or yesterday for that matter.  Your side has no concrete numbers... just hand picked data and speculation and a mandate.  That my friend is NOT REAL SCIENCE.  Nor is is PROOF of a damn thing.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 10, 2012, 11:05:01 PM
Whatever you say, man. Cherry-picked Socialist claptrap, for sure. It must be Obama's fault. Or Batman's. But not our fault, no way.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 10, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 10, 2012, 11:24:39 PM
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter[/url])


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance_Never_Dies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorance_Never_Dies)

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: LetsGoWings on July 10, 2012, 11:26:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_and_paste)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on July 10, 2012, 11:37:34 PM
Dust Bowl
The Dust Bowl dryness of the 1930's is known as one of the worst weather disasters to hit the United States. Although conditions were much worse in the plains states, Michigan was not spared by this dry spell. Three of the five driest years ever recorded in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit were recorded in the 1930's, with 1930, 33, 34, 36, and 39 being especially dry. In fact, the driest year ever recorded in Michigan history occurred in 1936, with Croswell in Sanilac County recording just 15.64 inches. This dryness caused great distress among farmers, adding an extra strain to people already suffering through the Great Depression.

 

Heat Wave of 1936
The period from July 8 – July 14, 1936 is likely the most severe heat wave ever experienced in Michigan, and one of the worst ever recorded in US history. Before this outbreak of heat, the National Weather Service had recorded just 7 days that Detroit had ever reached 100 degrees. That number doubled in just one week, as all 7 days from the 8th through 14th saw 100 degree temperatures. The high temperatures recorded in Detroit were 104,102,102,101,100,102,104. The 104.4 degrees recorded was the second highest temperature ever recorded in Detroit. Perhaps the worst day of all was the 10th, which saw a high of 102 and a low of 77, giving a mean temperature of 90. The weather was even hotter in Saginaw, which saw high temperatures of 104,104,105,107,107,107,111 (the hottest ever recorded). During this outbreak, Mio recorded a temperature of 112, which still stands as the highest temperature ever recorded in Michigan. Aside from doing damage to the record books, this outbreak caused great loss of life. In Detroit alone, 364 people died of the heat, with the elderly and infants being most susceptible to the heat. 570 people died across the state, and 5000 perished nationally from this severe heat wave.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 10, 2012, 11:46:26 PM
Dust Bowl
The Dust Bowl dryness of the 1930's is known as one of the worst weather disasters to hit the United States. Although conditions were much worse in the plains states, Michigan was not spared by this dry spell. Three of the five driest years ever recorded in Flint, Saginaw, and Detroit were recorded in the 1930's, with 1930, 33, 34, 36, and 39 being especially dry. In fact, the driest year ever recorded in Michigan history occurred in 1936, with Croswell in Sanilac County recording just 15.64 inches. This dryness caused great distress among farmers, adding an extra strain to people already suffering through the Great Depression.

 

Heat Wave of 1936
The period from July 8 – July 14, 1936 is likely the most severe heat wave ever experienced in Michigan, and one of the worst ever recorded in US history. Before this outbreak of heat, the National Weather Service had recorded just 7 days that Detroit had ever reached 100 degrees. That number doubled in just one week, as all 7 days from the 8th through 14th saw 100 degree temperatures. The high temperatures recorded in Detroit were 104,102,102,101,100,102,104. The 104.4 degrees recorded was the second highest temperature ever recorded in Detroit. Perhaps the worst day of all was the 10th, which saw a high of 102 and a low of 77, giving a mean temperature of 90. The weather was even hotter in Saginaw, which saw high temperatures of 104,104,105,107,107,107,111 (the hottest ever recorded). During this outbreak, Mio recorded a temperature of 112, which still stands as the highest temperature ever recorded in Michigan. Aside from doing damage to the record books, this outbreak caused great loss of life. In Detroit alone, 364 people died of the heat, with the elderly and infants being most susceptible to the heat. 570 people died across the state, and 5000 perished nationally from this severe heat wave.


Good thing we have Fermi to keep us cool.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 11, 2012, 01:23:16 AM
Whatever you say, man. Cherry-picked Socialist claptrap, for sure. It must be Obama's fault. Or Batman's. But not our fault, no way.



No I guess whatever YOU say man....  every time someone used even a hint of logical rebuttal against the junk science you keep as TRUTH you go all snark city.

Tells me you are just pounding an already bought and paid for drum, just like a good soldier does.  When that drum is taken from you then you just revert to snark.

Let us just argue that the earth is only 5000 years old....( you and I are both more intelligent than that but we can keep some of the righties in the conversation this way)  your data from the last 30 years does not even represent 1% percent of all the data available throughout time AND there is competeing data available that pushes back against what you already feel is FACT....  I do not know of any real scientist that would offer a conclusion and submit as fact... data from less than 1% of an available sample with ample contradictory data that is already in front of thier face.  Now if the world is a million years old.... wow!  Your "science" is not anywhere near being close to being acceptible.  Your PROOF... garbage.... no matter how old you want to call the Earth.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on July 11, 2012, 06:13:26 AM
Here's your proof right here.  Then again it's from those space men.

(http://climate.nasa.gov/images/evidence_CO2.jpg)

Quote

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.



http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on July 11, 2012, 07:02:20 AM
Wow, 650,000 years of data from orbiting satellites?   Who extrapolated what from what?

The to follow with the quote  "Most of it"   "Likely contributed by"... 
solid arguements from solid facts.

Curious why the rush to blame it all on Humans when nature produces it as well, and what the comparison of our planets warming is to those around us, if it's not related to that big yellow thing that appears every day in the sky.  Concentrating on one aspect (CO2) is the problem - as there are many variables in this puzzle.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 11, 2012, 08:15:20 AM
Wow, 650,000 years of data from orbiting satellites?   Who extrapolated what from what?

The to follow with the quote  "Most of it"   "Likely contributed by"... 
solid arguements from solid facts.

Curious why the rush to blame it all on Humans when nature produces it as well, and what the comparison of our planets warming is to those around us, if it's not related to that big yellow thing that appears every day in the sky.  Concentrating on one aspect (CO2) is the problem - as there are many variables in this puzzle.

Even if humans aren't causing climate change, pollution is ingrained in every aspect of our lives.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on July 11, 2012, 08:51:12 AM
Let us just argue that the earth is only 5000 years old....

I refuse to believe it existed yesterday. There. That's all junk science, now.  Your entire paragraph, gone in a whiff of holier-than-thou.

See how easy it is? I can dismiss an entire scientific field with the wave of my hand and "pah, i refuse to believe it, JUNK SCIENCE!" And that's what you're doing. People are, literally, burying you in graphs of data, and you just turn around and shout "JUNK SCIENCE LALALA JUNK SCIENCE LALALA". Why would we argue with a true believer of climate denial? You're going to do whatever you want to do, and you're going to have kids that will do whatever they want to do, so **** it, right? Burn ALL the tires!

If this is really what scientific debate has boiled down to, our country is ******. Both sides don't get to have "their" side of science every time there's an issue. Hey, did you know gravity is just a theory? I refuse to believe it, though - after all, Isaac Newton was a gay alchemist, so everything he said was obviously suspect.

I, for one, subscribe to the Intelligent Falling theory - everything that comes to earth is guided by His Holy Hands. PROVE ME WRONG, JUNK SCIENCE!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 11, 2012, 09:17:18 AM
I, for one, subscribe to the Intelligent Falling theory - everything that comes to earth is guided by His Holy Hands. PROVE ME WRONG, JUNK SCIENCE!


You are so right!  Let's spend every last American dollar (and print more if necessary) to fix it!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 11, 2012, 11:29:44 AM
Wow, 650,000 years of data from orbiting satellites?   Who extrapolated what from what?

The to follow with the quote  "Most of it"   "Likely contributed by"... 
solid arguements from solid facts.

Curious why the rush to blame it all on Humans when nature produces it as well, and what the comparison of our planets warming is to those around us, if it's not related to that big yellow thing that appears every day in the sky.  Concentrating on one aspect (CO2) is the problem - as there are many variables in this puzzle.


Why try to see if man is having a detrimental effect?  Maybe because if man IS, then man CAN do something to alleviate what he is doing.

Why when nature does it as well?  Because natural events do change weather, usually short term, but does.  Does that mean that we are excused and allowed to pollute all we want because nature has volcanoes?

It is like what Tiny posted about the dust bowl.  A natural drought event developed over the ocean and hit North America.  The bad environmental practices of man made a natural event a much worse event.  However, that was still just a localized (to North America) event and not planet wide.  Would there have been a drought anyway?  Yes.  But, does that mean that man should continue the same proved bad practices so it will increase more natural weather events?

Climate change does not mean that we cannot have a day in summer that is cool.  Weather is variable by location and day.  What it does do is say that planet-wide we are warming.  Not just the United States or not just Michigan.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 11, 2012, 11:33:33 AM
No I guess whatever YOU say man....  every time someone used even a hint of logical rebuttal against the junk science you keep as TRUTH you go all snark city.

Tells me you are just pounding an already bought and paid for drum, just like a good soldier does.  When that drum is taken from you then you just revert to snark.

Let us just argue that the earth is only 5000 years old....( you and I are both more intelligent than that but we can keep some of the righties in the conversation this way)  your data from the last 30 years does not even represent 1% percent of all the data available throughout time AND there is competeing data available that pushes back against what you already feel is FACT....  I do not know of any real scientist that would offer a conclusion and submit as fact... data from less than 1% of an available sample with ample contradictory data that is already in front of thier face.  Now if the world is a million years old.... wow!  Your "science" is not anywhere near being close to being acceptible.  Your PROOF... garbage.... no matter how old you want to call the Earth.


Banging the drum?  You mean like what you and the right are doing with “junk science?”  Did you know that REAL scientists publish their studies for peer review and that a great deal of what the right latches on to is questioning methods and weighing of variable and not actual denial of climate change?  Did you also know that the deniers paid for by big business do not?

Ice core samples from around the world can and do show CO2 levels and temperature change.  That is not just the last 150 years of recorded weather.  Those are facts.  The information garnered from that is where the conflict of scientists is.  Is this core area change caused by a local event at this period of time while another area does not show that change.  The bull patty the right uses of saying the science was falsified is just lies.  The emails were of scientists talking to each other on the weighting of values.  Research by deniers - in an attempt to prove that the interpretation of facts was wrong - ended up proving them correct.

There is a great deal of room to qualify what the concrete facts mean, and good scientists are doing that. 

What does “junk science” mean?  Obviously, it is a propaganda tool developed by the right to support the right.  But, beyond that what does it mean.  I don’t think that there is any one definition, but I think of two off the bat that fit as what I would call “junk science.”


Studies paid for by a big corporation or a conglomerate of corporations to support a given conclusion.  The company wants this answer and the study is to validate that answer.  These “studies” always fall apart when experts examine them. These are never peer reviewed, but used as advertising.

Someone coming up with a hypothesis and creating a study that proves it with incorrect methods.  The doctor that made the claims that vaccinations cause autism is one that comes to mind.  He was well intentioned, but others could not replicate his findings or found counter proof that outweighed the study.  These are more a benign “junk science.”

Now, is it possible that 90+ percent of all scientists in many different fields can ALL be wrong and actually be producing bad science?  Is it possible that thousands of scientists from many fields of study can do research in many different ways and all come to the same conclusion wrongly?  Anything is possible, but likely?  However, the methods and practices of scientists are well established to help prevent human errors.  The fact that different fields of study come at the same facts in very different ways is supportive when each field sees the same thing.

But, for you and the right to make the obvious propaganda claim that anything not supporting YOUR distortion is “junk science” is nothing but horrible.  It is right and good for scientists to question and validate.  But, for the right to grab on meta and claim that a minor thing invalidates everything else is wrong.  The oceans and aggregate global yearly temperatures are rising.  That does not mean that there are no cold days, or that out of the ordinary or that out of the ordinary weather events do not happen.  It does not mean that a volcano cannot change a climate AREA for a short period of time, but does show that they are more localized (not global) and temporary.

But, none of that really matters because you and the right want to make a disgusting invalid claim that anything that does not support your political ideology is “junk science” and it seems the more valid the facts, the more the right claims “junk science.”  The right has some stupid notion that some liberal/Kenyan/socialist/Nazi’s came up with an idea and got 90+ percent of scientist from many fields to support it when the reality is that those scientists started seeing patterns and working from different genre’s and a confluence of fact revealed a global pattern.  But, because the left saw reality, the right sees it as an attack from the left and makes up propaganda and “junk science” in a disgusting pattern trying to sway the stupid into believing that it isn’t valid science.

When the real experts discuss climate change the argument is not whether there is global warming, but how MUCH man is affecting it.  About 85% of the scientists from many fields agree that the cause is man, but question the degree of effect. The 15% came from two groups primarily.  They were meteorologists and those working directly for oil companies.  Meteorologists deal only with local climate and conditions mainly trying to predict short term weather forecasts.  They do not deal global or long term.  Those working for oil companies....

Einsteins theory of general relativity has been proved, and is accepted as real (but not complete).  Yet, the right seems to still want to call it “junk science” and claim it is not correct.

Quote
It seems that the folks at Conservapedia – a sort of conservative alternative to the more familar online encyclopedia Wikipedia – are not fans of Einstein's most famous theory, general relativity. In fact, they view it as a far-reaching liberal conspiracy.

The website TPMMuckraker recently drew attention to a page on the site titled "Counterexamples to relativity". It says: "The theory of relativity is a mathematical system that allows no exceptions. It is heavily promoted by liberals who like its encouragement of relativism and its tendency to mislead people in how they view the world."

The Conservapedia page then lists 30 counterexamples to general relativity, any of which, it claims, "shows that the theory is incorrect". Many of these are bizarre, such as "the action-at-a-distance by Jesus, described in John 4:46-54." Apparently, Jesus's ability to instantaneously heal a child from a distance – his healing powers travelled through space faster than the speed of light – was evidence enough to rule out Einstein's theory. Of course, Jesus wasn't the only one to appear to violate Einstein's cosmic speed limit. So-called entangled quantum particles do it in labs all the time. (Church of the Entanglement, anyone?)

Scanning further pages on Conservapedia, it seems that the religious right's beef with Einstein runs deep. Just as evolution dissenters say they are being deprived of their "academic freedom", relativity deniers claim they are now in the same boat. "Despite censorship of dissent about relativity, evidence contrary to the theory is discussed outside of liberal universities," reads the website's main article on relativity.

In reality, general relativity has passed every experimental test to which it's been put – but Conservapedia isn't satisfied. They refer to a 1919 solar eclipse expedition that bore out the theory's prediction that starlight would be bent by the sun's gravity as "a dramatic but later discredited claim by Sir Arthur Eddington of experimental proof of general relativity". It's true that Eddington's results had large uncertainties, but the experiment has been tested and retested and the data holds up every time.

Enter Obama

Read further and you will find this astonishing piece of information, clearly the smoking gun of the Einsteinian liberal conspiracy: "Barack Obama helped publish an article by liberal law professor Laurence Tribe to apply the relativistic concept of 'curvature of space' to promote a broad legal right to abortion".

Wait. What? The article in question is "The Curvature of Constitutional Space: What lawyers can learn from modern physics" (pdf) by Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School. Published in 1989 in the Harvard Law Review, the paper includes a "thank you" to Barack Obama in the acknowledgments, an unsurprising fact given that Obama was the journal's editor at the time.

In the article, Tribe uses metaphors of space-time curvature in the context of constitutional law, including an analysis of Roe v. Wade. "I do not address the subject because I am determined to bring science or mathematics into law," he writes. "Rather, my conjecture is that the metaphors and intuitions that guide physicists can enrich our comprehension of social and legal issues."

Nearly two decades later, physicist Frank Tipler took on Tribe's paper in an article on the Social Science Research Network entitled "The Obama-Tribe 'Curvature of Constitutional Space' Paper is Crackpot Physics". Coming from a physicist who authored the book The Physics of Christianity, in which he claims that without Jesus's resurrection, our universe couldn't exist, I am forced to question the meaning of "crackpot". It's no matter, though, because Tribe's grasp of general relativity is irrelevant – he was not writing a scientific paper, he was merely creating an analogy. But for Andy Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia and son of anti-abortion activist Phyllis Schlafly, the analogy was apparently enough to turn him off Einstein for good.

Despite the fact that it has passed test after test, you would be hard-pressed to find a single physicist who believes that general relativity is ultimately the correct theory of the universe. That's because it conflicts with quantum mechanics and is yet to be unified with the other three forces of nature. A theory of quantum gravity such as string theory will be needed to pick up where Einstein left off. General relativity is certainly not wrong – but it's not the whole story.

[url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19303-emc2-not-on-conservapedia.html[/url] ([url]http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19303-emc2-not-on-conservapedia.html[/url])





Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 11, 2012, 11:34:08 AM
You are so right!  Let's spend every last American dollar (and print more if necessary) to fix it!


Invoking fear mongering isn’t going to change anything.  Many things have been proposed that don’t take every f***ing dollar as taxes.  Stop paying subsidies to oil companies and invest in renewable energy.  Raise cafe standards, inflate your frikking tires properly. 

If you got cancer wouldn’t you use your savings, sell your house and exhaust all funds you can to try and reverse it?  Now, no one is saying we are headed for species extinction because of climate change, nor are they not.  What they are saying is that the planet is very sick.  That is factual.  Is it a natural sick like a common cold, or is it a cancer we gave it, or maybe both? 

Right now the argument of scientists is we are at the point where if we try to head off the bad, it might work.  If we wait the problem gets worse and takes more drastic measures.  Eventually every single dollar from everyone will not do a thing to help.

Isn’t it hilarious.. Some see a problem and hope some change will alleviate the problem.  They worry about the possibility of human extinction because of what WE have done and are doing. In effect, they care about people. Others repeatedly frames it as money, money, money, TAXES!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 11, 2012, 12:13:10 PM
Wow, 650,000 years of data from orbiting satellites?   Who extrapolated what from what?
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)
Not that it matters.  It won't change my mind.  Junk science is junk science.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 11, 2012, 12:21:13 PM
You are so right!  Let's spend every last American dollar (and print more if necessary) to fix it!
Heck, they print the stuff like it is going out of style anyway, why not print some up and fix ****!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 11, 2012, 12:22:45 PM
This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Source: NOAA)
Excellent and timely post. NOAA says they know they will get criticism, but they will defend their science.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 11, 2012, 12:28:38 PM
Heck, they print the stuff like it is going out of style anyway, why not print some up and fix ****!
Actually, they are trying to get rid of it as much as possible. Using digital dollars is much cheaper and easier to track. People like to say that they are printing dollars like there is no tomorrow, because it makes a good sound byte.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 11, 2012, 12:38:26 PM
Actually, they are trying to get rid of it as much as possible. Using digital dollars is much cheaper and easier to track. People like to say that they are printing dollars like there is no tomorrow, because it makes a good sound byte.
Are bitcoins that easy to track?
I don't know what they print or mint, but I know they keep borrowing from foreign governments.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 11, 2012, 12:56:10 PM
Are bitcoins that easy to track?
I don't know what they print or mint, but I know they keep borrowing from foreign governments.
Not talking "bitcoins", talking real dollars. Credit cards, debit cards, automatic deposit, etc.

The government would rather people use these types of transactions because they do not require the printing of actual currency and are easier to track.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 11, 2012, 12:57:37 PM
Not talking "bitcoins", talking real dollars. Credit cards, debit cards, automatic deposit, etc.

The government would rather people use these types of transactions because they do not require the printing of actual currency and are easier to track.
ah. I agree. Anyone with a smartphone can take a credit/debit payment now.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57398135-93/paypal-takes-on-square-with-credit-card-swiping-device/ (http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57398135-93/paypal-takes-on-square-with-credit-card-swiping-device/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 11, 2012, 01:33:09 PM

Invoking fear mongering isn’t going to change anything. 


I'm fear mongering????




The cost is the extinction of the human race.  How much money is that worth?


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on July 11, 2012, 01:42:52 PM
I'm fear mongering????

That's not fear, that's fact.  I know conservatives get the two confused all the time.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 11, 2012, 02:11:44 PM
That's not fear, that's fact.  I know conservatives get the two confused all the time.

Give me a break.  What dire predictions have come true from the govt., scientists in the last 100 years?  Global cooling?  Global warming?  The ozone?  Running out of fuel in 50 years (from the 1970's)? CO2 is ruining the climate (kill the cows) ? The seas are rising/falling?


Gosh, if we could just use wind & solar.  Like I haven't heard that for 50 years.  If only they could use more sheeple's money, then they could maybe, hopefully, possibly have a solution in 10, 15, 20 years.

Nothing but abject fear mongering to suck $ from the sheeple.  I ain't playing that game any more.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on July 11, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
Give me a break.  What dire predictions have come true from the govt., scientists in the last 100 years?  Global cooling?  Global warming?  The ozone?  Running out of fuel in 50 years (from the 1970's)? CO2 is ruining the climate (kill the cows) ? The seas are rising/falling?


Gosh, if we could just use wind & solar.  Like I haven't heard that for 50 years.  If only they could use more sheeple's money, then they could maybe, hopefully, possibly have a solution in 10, 15, 20 years.

Nothing but abject fear mongering to suck $ from the sheeple.  I ain't playing that game any more.

You are so ignorant that you don't care about your environment because you won't be around when the crap hits the fan.  Well personally I'm going to do my part to keep the earth in good shape, and you should to.  Unfortunately I can't make you, but go ahead with your life style.  Watch another forest die and another species killed off.  Go ahead and go with your virus like nature and consume consume consume.  Why not? You won't be around to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 11, 2012, 03:11:58 PM
Give me a break.  What dire predictions have come true from the govt., scientists in the last 100 years?  Global cooling?  Global warming?  The ozone?  Running out of fuel in 50 years (from the 1970's)? CO2 is ruining the climate (kill the cows) ? The seas are rising/falling?


Gosh, if we could just use wind & solar.  Like I haven't heard that for 50 years.  If only they could use more sheeple's money, then they could maybe, hopefully, possibly have a solution in 10, 15, 20 years.

Nothing but abject fear mongering to suck $ from the sheeple.  I ain't playing that game any more.


Anymore?  So, you are cool with the possibility that in 50 years the human population could become extinct.  But, by then you will be dead anyway, so who cares.  You worked and got good wages, so now that you collect social security then those wages need to go DOWN.  You get your SS and now those after you don’t need it, so kill it off - it is YOUR TAX DOLLARS that you probably don’t even pay on SS.  Maybe you got a pension, and now have to stop those after you to.  So, why not be selfish and not care if you kill a planet.  After all, those taxes you probably don’t pay are more important, that dollar fifty you save is worth letting the human species become extinct.

The right uses “what about the children” effectively as propaganda, but don’t give a crap about the children.  You go look your grandchild in the eyes and tell him/her that you are not playing that game anymore (that you never did) and they will die in 40 or 50 years when the human species becomes extinct, but, on the plus side, if they are old enough to work for a dime a day it will save them a dollar or two a year in taxes.  I bet they will love you for that trade... they will know from you that money is forever, even if people are not.

As for the first part, there is no need to say anything as you already clearly state you will not listen to anything except the Faux News spin.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on July 11, 2012, 04:27:57 PM

Anymore?  So, you are cool with the possibility that in 50 years the human population could become extinct.  But, by then you will be dead anyway, so who cares.  You worked and got good wages, so now that you collect social security then those wages need to go DOWN.  You get your SS and now those after you don’t need it, so kill it off - it is YOUR TAX DOLLARS that you probably don’t even pay on SS.  Maybe you got a pension, and now have to stop those after you to.  So, why not be selfish and not care if you kill a planet.  After all, those taxes you probably don’t pay are more important, that dollar fifty you save is worth letting the human species become extinct.

The right uses “what about the children” effectively as propaganda, but don’t give a crap about the children.  You go look your grandchild in the eyes and tell him/her that you are not playing that game anymore (that you never did) and they will die in 40 or 50 years when the human species becomes extinct, but, on the plus side, if they are old enough to work for a dime a day it will save them a dollar or two a year in taxes.  I bet they will love you for that trade... they will know from you that money is forever, even if people are not.

As for the first part, there is no need to say anything as you already clearly state you will not listen to anything except the Faux News spin.


Your propagandistic argument is strong on the transfer technique and while offering little to no scientific correlation.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on July 11, 2012, 05:13:57 PM

Anymore?  So, you are cool with the possibility that in 50 years the human population could become extinct.  But, by then you will be dead anyway, so who cares.  You worked and got good wages, so now that you collect social security then those wages need to go DOWN.  You get your SS and now those after you don’t need it, so kill it off - it is YOUR TAX DOLLARS that you probably don’t even pay on SS.  Maybe you got a pension, and now have to stop those after you to.  So, why not be selfish and not care if you kill a planet.  After all, those taxes you probably don’t pay are more important, that dollar fifty you save is worth letting the human species become extinct.

The right uses “what about the children” effectively as propaganda, but don’t give a crap about the children.  You go look your grandchild in the eyes and tell him/her that you are not playing that game anymore (that you never did) and they will die in 40 or 50 years when the human species becomes extinct, but, on the plus side, if they are old enough to work for a dime a day it will save them a dollar or two a year in taxes.  I bet they will love you for that trade... they will know from you that money is forever, even if people are not.

As for the first part, there is no need to say anything as you already clearly state you will not listen to anything except the Faux News spin.


This is exactly why no one takes global warming seriously. People are not going to be extinct in 50 years because of climate change. Climate change has been going on since the Earth was formed. Over the last 50,000 years 65 percent of the mammal species weighing over 44kg have gone extinct and it wasn't man that caused it. When climates change animals and Man either adapt or go extinct, I think man has a pretty good chance of surviving climate change. It's war and mad men that will make man extinct.

"Climate change has been a significant factor in mass mammal extinction over most of the last fifty thousand years, according to an international team.

The team used global data modelling to build continental 'climate footprints' and map them on to extinction data.

"Between 50,000 and 3,000 years before present (BP), 65 percent of mammal species weighing over 44kg went extinct, together with a lower proportion of small mammals," says lead author Dr David Nogues-Bravo from the University of Copenhagen.

"Why these species became extinct in such large numbers has been hotly debated for over a century."

Over most of the last 50,000 years, the global climate became colder and drier, reaching full glacial conditions 21,000 years ago.

Since then, it's has become warmer, leading to colonization of new regions by humans - and many believed that it was this human colonization that cause the mass extinctions.

The study shows that climate change had a global influence over extinctions throughout the late quaternary, but the level of extinction seems to be related to each continent’s footprint of climate change.

In Africa, for example, where the climate changed relatively little, there were fewer extinctions. However, in North America, which experienced more climate change, more species suffered extinction."

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 11, 2012, 07:51:05 PM
Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists
New evidence shows changing speed of climate change.
And for the first time, a government-backed report links the recent wild weather to man-made causes.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/global-warming-accelerating-scientists-16751100 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/global-warming-accelerating-scientists-16751100)


Climate Change or Just Hot Weather?
George Will weighed in on the weather recently on ABC's "This Week," Will said "Come the winter there will be a cold snap, lots of snow, and the same guys, like [Washington Post columnist] E.J. [Dionne], will start lecturing us. There's a difference between weather and climate. I agree with that. We're having some hot weather. Get over it."
Such natural looking hair George..   8*

Climate Change or Just Hot Weather? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HawUoBj0jwE&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 11, 2012, 10:32:10 PM
This is exactly why no one takes global warming seriously. People are not going to be extinct in 50 years because of climate change. Climate change has been going on since the Earth was formed. Over the last 50,000 years 65 percent of the mammal species weighing over 44kg have gone extinct and it wasn't man that caused it. When climates change animals and Man either adapt or go extinct, I think man has a pretty good chance of surviving climate change. It's war and mad men that will make man extinct.

"Climate change has been a significant factor in mass mammal extinction over most of the last fifty thousand years, according to an international team.

The team used global data modelling to build continental 'climate footprints' and map them on to extinction data.

"Between 50,000 and 3,000 years before present (BP), 65 percent of mammal species weighing over 44kg went extinct, together with a lower proportion of small mammals," says lead author Dr David Nogues-Bravo from the University of Copenhagen.

"Why these species became extinct in such large numbers has been hotly debated for over a century."

Over most of the last 50,000 years, the global climate became colder and drier, reaching full glacial conditions 21,000 years ago.

Since then, it's has become warmer, leading to colonization of new regions by humans - and many believed that it was this human colonization that cause the mass extinctions.

The study shows that climate change had a global influence over extinctions throughout the late quaternary, but the level of extinction seems to be related to each continent’s footprint of climate change.

In Africa, for example, where the climate changed relatively little, there were fewer extinctions. However, in North America, which experienced more climate change, more species suffered extinction."




Tiny, you should have realized if you read the topic, which I was responding to an individual that specifically states that he has not and will not listen to anything but the Faux News viewpoint.  He claims anything scientific that supports anything but that view is “junk science”.

Yes, climates have changed because of outside forces.  However, to say that man CANNOT be having an effect is equal to saying that because forest fires can be started by nature, then man cannot start forest fires.
 
I agree that if the climate changes drastically then man will adapt or go extinct.  That is a correct observation, which is what I was using when I said “possibly”.

Interesting article you quoted (without citation).  It shows that scientists have used the same methods as the current climate change science to show that past events have changed the climate and caused extinction.  It supports the “possibility” of human extinction from a climate change event.  It does NOT say it is guaranteed. 

“It's war and mad men that will make man extinct.”

I fear the supposedly “sane” ones more.  They seem to be the ones that do the most damage in the name of prevention...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 11, 2012, 10:35:06 PM

Your propagandistic argument is strong on the transfer technique and while offering little to no scientific correlation.
No kidding!  And if you read more of the topic you would know why... 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: LMayzlin on July 12, 2012, 04:03:49 AM
the amount of actual impact that humans have on global climate changes is miniscule...compared to natural impacts...

For those in favor of believing that it's not crap science, how come none of you are yapping about Centralia, PA ... I know ... you are saying "Centralia, what?"  .. google is your friend.  It's been on fire and emitting toxins into the atmosphere for over 40 years --

There's no rush to put out that fire by the people or the government... actually the government has decided it is best to just wipe it off the map and pretend it never existed.

I am not, nor have I ever been, on the Al Gore bandwagon -- warming, cooling, warming, cooling... C'est La Vie.

And folks, before you get out your torches -- this IS what they teach in the science classes at our finest secondary school in Monroe -- MCCC...if you feel THEY are not pushing the propaganda, take it up with the Board of Trustees -- they might like to hear from you.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on July 12, 2012, 07:13:48 AM
Ummm...the reason it hasn't been put out is because it's underground and difficult to get to.  Not to mention most of the gasses get trapped and filtered through the earth.  They're not getting directly pushed into the atmosphere.  I agree, it should be put out and we should do anything we can to stop it.  That still doesn't change the fact that climate change is real.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on July 12, 2012, 07:42:56 AM
Yeah, CO2 is bad.  Now write me a check, please.



Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.


http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 12, 2012, 08:09:31 AM
the amount of actual impact that humans have on global climate changes is miniscule...compared to natural impacts...

For those in favor of believing that it's not crap science, how come none of you are yapping about Centralia, PA ... I know ... you are saying "Centralia, what?"  .. google is your friend.  It's been on fire and emitting toxins into the atmosphere for over 40 years --

There's no rush to put out that fire by the people or the government... actually the government has decided it is best to just wipe it off the map and pretend it never existed.

I am not, nor have I ever been, on the Al Gore bandwagon -- warming, cooling, warming, cooling... C'est La Vie.

And folks, before you get out your torches -- this IS what they teach in the science classes at our finest secondary school in Monroe -- MCCC...if you feel THEY are not pushing the propaganda, take it up with the Board of Trustees -- they might like to hear from you.


Are you implying that the Centralia fire produces more greenhouse gasses than all cars and factories in the world?

Or are you saying that a miniscule (compared to global size) local event does not cause global climate change?

Are you saying a relatively small local event causes no climate change so no matter what man does it won’t affect the climate?

As per the last, are you implying that MCCC does not teach scientific fact?  Because it isn’t a debate about scientific measures that show the rise of the global yearly average land temperatures, or the rise of the global ocean temperatures.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 12, 2012, 08:12:35 AM
Yeah, CO2 is bad.  Now write me a check, please.



Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. After years of public service--and four kids needing high-priced educations--Al and Tipper used to fret occasionally about money. Not anymore. They have a new multimillion-dollar home in a tony section of Nashville and a family home in Virginia, and have recently bought a multimillion-dollar condo at the St. Regis condo/hotel in San Francisco. Available data indicate a net worth well in excess of $100 million.


[url]http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html[/url] ([url]http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-gore.html[/url])


Cool, we have a staunch Republican arguing that getting rich is a bad thing...

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on July 12, 2012, 09:03:38 AM
Cool, we have a staunch Republican arguing that getting rich is a bad thing...

No, you are wrong on several counts.  Why do the lefties on this forum insist on seeing things that aren't there?

I am a staunch conservative.  I am NOT a Republican.  There is a huge difference.  The current Republican Party does NOT reflect my political views.  They spend WAY too much taxpayer money, and restrict law abiding citizens WAY too much.

I never said getting rich was bad.  Hell, I'm all for it!  And I REALLY don't have a problem with Al Gore making millions of dollars on his global warming scam.  I really don't!  On the contrary, I applaud him!  I wish I could make that kind of money, and collect $175,000 for giving a speech!

The point of my post went right over your head, evidently.  My point is this:  If you want to know the truth, follow the money.  ALWAYS follow the money.  (i.e. Al Gore, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Evergreen Solar, and on, and on, and on).


Global warming exists... and global cooling also exists.  It just depends on which section of time you look at, in order to strengthen your premise, which ever one you happen to believe.  And your premise will be which ever one makes you more money.  Understand now?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 12, 2012, 09:06:38 AM
the amount of actual impact that humans have on global climate changes is miniscule...compared to natural impacts...

For those in favor of believing that it's not crap science, how come none of you are yapping about Centralia, PA ... I know ... you are saying "Centralia, what?"  .. google is your friend.  It's been on fire and emitting toxins into the atmosphere for over 40 years --

There's no rush to put out that fire by the people or the government... actually the government has decided it is best to just wipe it off the map and pretend it never existed.

I am not, nor have I ever been, on the Al Gore bandwagon -- warming, cooling, warming, cooling... C'est La Vie.

And folks, before you get out your torches -- this IS what they teach in the science classes at our finest secondary school in Monroe -- MCCC...if you feel THEY are not pushing the propaganda, take it up with the Board of Trustees -- they might like to hear from you.
What good will the atmosphere do if the earth is a waste dump? Pollution is everywhere, it's so bad even humans are contaminated.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 12, 2012, 10:17:08 AM
No, you are wrong on several counts.  Why do the lefties on this forum insist on seeing things that aren't there?

I am a staunch conservative.  I am NOT a Republican.  There is a huge difference.  The current Republican Party does NOT reflect my political views.  They spend WAY too much taxpayer money, and restrict law abiding citizens WAY too much.

I never said getting rich was bad.  Hell, I'm all for it!  And I REALLY don't have a problem with Al Gore making millions of dollars on his global warming scam.  I really don't!  On the contrary, I applaud him!  I wish I could make that kind of money, and collect $175,000 for giving a speech!

The point of my post went right over your head, evidently.  My point is this:  If you want to know the truth, follow the money.  ALWAYS follow the money.  (i.e. Al Gore, Solyndra, SpectraWatt, Evergreen Solar, and on, and on, and on).


Global warming exists... and global cooling also exists.  It just depends on which section of time you look at, in order to strengthen your premise, which ever one you happen to believe.  And your premise will be which ever one makes you more money.  Understand now?

Umm, it was snark...

I see no reason it is pertinent to the discussion.  Yes, he made a second career off of climate change.  He (alone) didn’t create climate change.   He just brought attention to it.  Better than most retiring politician’s that go into lobbying in my opinion.

The big problem with your premise of “follow the money” is that climate change science FACT occurred BEFORE Al Gore made it his cause.

Wouldn’t “follow the money” also be valid for climate deniers?  That is majorly funded by two groups, oil companies, and big corporations and so-called “small businesses” that depend on polluting for profit.  Wouldn’t it seem likely that these would push false science to promote their paid for agenda?  As a side note... Why are companies that make millions or billions of dollars allowed to be called “small business” as the Koch’s and others are.  That was an example and agree that there must be liberal companies that do it too.  Just the premise that a company making millions or billions can be classified as “small business”.

Yes, the climate changes...   Yet, throughout history, 10,000 years anyway, the climate globally is pretty constant. Some changes year to year but pretty constant... until the industrial age and climate takes an upward trend that is not stopping or slowing, but is going faster than predicated.  Even our local drought and heatwave could be just a local climate blip.  What climate change is about is that it has human aggravators involved is making a natural occurrence more extreme.  Perhaps we would have an upwards, warming cycle, but that humans are making that upward trend go extreme.

Still, even bigger hurricanes and more violent storms, more severe droughts, more expansive or hotter heatwaves are not climate change, they are symptoms of climate change.  There is a GLOBAL warming of the land and of the oceans.  Even the deniers have to admit that. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on July 12, 2012, 06:15:08 PM

Wouldn’t “follow the money” also be valid for climate deniers?  Wouldn’t it seem likely that these would push false science to promote their paid for agenda? 

Yes, I agree that is possible.

As a side note... Why are companies that make millions or billions of dollars allowed to be called “small business” as the Koch’s and others are.  That was an example and agree that there must be liberal companies that do it too.  Just the premise that a company making millions or billions can be classified as “small business”.

Yes, I agree that is wrong.  To me, a business with gross revenue of less than ten million dollars is a "small business".  Anything bigger is either medium or big business.  JMHO.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 12, 2012, 08:27:46 PM
Why do the lefties on this forum insist on seeing things that aren't there?
Why do you blame those on the left, and let those on the right get a free pass?

This is an unfair statement.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 13, 2012, 09:31:46 AM
And it continues:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice)

And the comments are just as interesting.  Here's one where they quote Dr. Robert G. Brown:


The issue of difficulty is key. Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all, if one examines the complete
geological record of global temperature variation on planet Earth (as
best as we can reconstruct it) not just over the last 200 years but over
the last 25 million years, over the last billion years — one learns that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about today’s temperatures!
Seriously. Not one human being on the planet would look at that
complete record — or even the complete record of temperatures during the
Holocene, or the Pliestocene — and stab down their finger at the
present and go “Oh no!”. Quite the contrary. It isn’t the warmest. It
isn’t close to the warmest. It isn’t the warmest in the last 2 or 3
thousand years. It isn’t warming the fastest. It isn’t doing anything that can be resolved from the natural statistical
variation of the data. Indeed, now that Mann’s utterly fallacious
hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with the LIA and
MWP restored, it isn’t even remarkable in the last thousand years!

Furthermore, examination of this record over the last 5 million years
reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends
80 to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that
cover the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate
zone. We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which humans emerged all the way
from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern civilization. The Earth’s
climate is manifestly, empirically bistable, with a warm phase and cold
phase, and the cold phase is both more likely and more stable. As a
physicist who has extensively studied bistable open systems, this
empirical result clearly visible in the data has profound implications.
The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling
from the Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant
on the scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are
nowhere near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000
years ended a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with
the Maunder minimum in solar activity.

...
Sadly, it is all too likely that this is precisely what is
at stake in climate research. If there is no threat of catastrophe — and
as I said, prior to the hockey stick nobody had the slightest bit of
luck convincing anyone that the sky was falling because global climate
today is geologically unremarkable in every single way except that we happen to be living in it
instead of analyzing it in a geological record — then there is little
incentive to fund the enormous amount of work being done on climate
science. There is even less incentive to spend trillions of dollars of other people’s money
(and some of our own) to ameliorate a “threat” that might well be pure
moonshine, quite possibly ignoring an even greater threat of movement in
the exact opposite direction to the one the IPCC anticipates.

Why am I a skeptic? Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance in addressing this supremely difficult problem,
while at the same time as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its
benefits against draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time scale.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 13, 2012, 01:52:53 PM
The World's Most Visited Newspaper Website Continues to Regurgitate Nonsense from Climate Change 'Skeptics'

The website of the Daily Mail, one of the UK's most popular daily newspapers, has proved once again that some parts of the Press are apparently oblivious to the scrutiny they are receiving from the Leveson Inquiry into their culture and practices following the phone hacking scandal.

Three months ago, I wrote about a researcher, Dr Zunli Lu, whose new journal paper was misrepresented in an article published by the Mail Online, after it was transmitted through the echo chamber of climate change denial. Dr Lu took the unusual step of issuing a statement to explicitly refute an article about his work in the Mail Online, which grudgingly responded by making some minor amendments while still refusing to correct the most egregious errors.

An official objection was made by Mr Philip Bell, and the Press Complaints Commission ruled last month that the article was in breach of the Editors' Code of Practice. But rather than correct the errors, the Mail Online simply removed the article from its website without posting any explanation or apology.

Then this week, the Mail Online demonstrated that it had learned nothing from the episode when it misrepresented a new paper on 'Orbital forcing of tree-ring data' by a group of German, Swiss, Finnish and UK scientists, published in the journal Nature Climate Change on 8 July.

The study describes a reconstruction of summer temperatures over the past 2,000 years in northern Scandinavia based on an analysis of tree rings, concluding that there has been a gradual cooling trend over this period and that regional temperatures during Medieval and Roman times may have been warmer than previously thought.

Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, issued a press release about the new paper on 9 July to publicise the role of one of its staff, Professor Jan Esper, as lead author of the study. The release provides an accurate summary of some of the key points under the heading 'Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time'.

Somewhat predictably, the press release was picked up by climate change 'sceptics', who are obsessed with the Medieval Warm Period in the profoundly mistaken belief that if it can be proved that global average temperature was higher than today about 1,000 years ago, it will overturn the many lines of compelling evidence that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are causing the Earth to warm now. The current evidence suggests that some parts of the northern hemisphere may indeed have been as warm during the Medieval Warm Period as they are today, but it is not clear that it was a global warming.

'Watts Up With That', the climate change 'sceptic' website in the United States, reproduced the press release on 9 July under the headline 'This is what global cooling really looks like - new tree ring study shows 2,000 years of cooling - previous studies underestimated temperatures of Roman and Medieval Warm Periods'. This headline, of course, wrongly indicated that the study had investigated global temperatures, rather than just those in northern Scandinavia.

As is so often the case, the distorted account of the research paper's contents was soon transmitted to climate change 'sceptics' in the UK. On 11 July, The Register, a UK online newspaper for computing professionals which has a bizarre sideline in misleading and inaccurate reports about climate change, followed the lead set by 'Watts Up With That', with a story about the research under the headline 'Climate Was Hotter in Roman, Medieval Times Than Now'. The second paragraph of the article by Lewis Page, published at 12.44 pm on 10 July, states: "A large team of scientists making a comprehensive study of data from tree rings say that in fact global temperatures have been on a falling trend for the past 2,000 years and they have often been noticeably higher than they are today - despite the absence of any significant amounts of human-released carbon dioxide back then".

Page's inaccurate report was reproduced at 8:48 am on 11 July on the website of the UK's main lobby group for climate change 'sceptics', the Global Warming Policy Foundation, before it was eventually spotted by Rob Waugh, a journalist for the Mail Online, whose Twitter profile describes him as "UK journalist writing about the web, gadgets, games etc". Waugh's account of the research paper, published on 11 July at 1:22 pm, propagated the glaring inaccuracies introduced by 'Watts Up With That' and The Register, under the headline 'Tree-rings prove climate was WARMER in Roman and Medieval times than it is now - and world has been cooling for 2,000 years'. The opening paragraph of the article states: "Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years".

When I contacted by e-mail Dr Robert Wilson, a co-author on the research paper and a Senior Lecturer in Geography and Sustainable Development at the University of St Andrews, he sent me this response:


    "Of course the Mail has gone too far. Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct. However, previous regional tree-ring series have been used in large scale compilations and if there are low frequency biases in ring-width series, then it is likely that previous attempts may underestimate temperatures in previous warm periods such as the RWP [Roman Warm Period] and MCA [Medieval Climatic Anomaly]. More density series need to be developed from other regions to test this however."

This case yet again exposes the apparent total disregard that the Mail Online has for the current self-regulatory rules about accuracy, and its willingness to misrepresent the results of climate research. However its slavish regurgitation of this sort of climate change 'skeptic' propaganda is making it a national laughing stock.

Bob Ward is policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics and Political Science.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/the-worlds-most-visited-n_b_1667338.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/bob-ward/the-worlds-most-visited-n_b_1667338.html)


The fact is....the right is trying to create doubt in any way they can.
I feel sorry for the fools that actually end up believing those lies...but it does show how little it takes to fool the gullible.

Climate change is a fact Jack....that's irrefutable...and we're going to experience wild unpredictable weather primarily because of man-made global warming.

Denying scientific evidence while at the same time complaining about cost just doesn't square with me.

Now those in denial can continue strumming their lips with their fingers...but aside from their own entertainment...they're really not accomplishing anything.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 13, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
And it continues:

[url]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice[/url] ([url]http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/11/new-study-thoroughly-debunks-global-warming-will-media-notice[/url])

And the comments are just as interesting.  Here's one where they quote Dr. Robert G. Brown:


The issue of difficulty is key. Let me tell you in a few short words why I am a skeptic. First of all, if one examines the complete
geological record of global temperature variation on planet Earth (as
best as we can reconstruct it) not just over the last 200 years but over
the last 25 million years, over the last billion years — one learns that there is absolutely nothing remarkable about today’s temperatures!
Seriously. Not one human being on the planet would look at that
complete record — or even the complete record of temperatures during the
Holocene, or the Pliestocene — and stab down their finger at the
present and go “Oh no!”. Quite the contrary. It isn’t the warmest. It
isn’t close to the warmest. It isn’t the warmest in the last 2 or 3
thousand years. It isn’t warming the fastest. It isn’t doing anything that can be resolved from the natural statistical
variation of the data. Indeed, now that Mann’s utterly fallacious
hockey stick reconstruction has been re-reconstructed with the LIA and
MWP restored, it isn’t even remarkable in the last thousand years!

Furthermore, examination of this record over the last 5 million years
reveals a sobering fact. We are in an ice age, where the Earth spends
80 to 90% of its geological time in the grip of vast ice sheets that
cover the polar latitudes well down into what is currently the temperate
zone. We are at the (probable) end of the Holocene, the interglacial in which humans emerged all the way
from tribal hunter-gatherers to modern civilization. The Earth’s
climate is manifestly, empirically bistable, with a warm phase and cold
phase, and the cold phase is both more likely and more stable. As a
physicist who has extensively studied bistable open systems, this
empirical result clearly visible in the data has profound implications.
The fact that the LIA was the coldest point in the entire Holocene (which has been systematically cooling
from the Holocene Optimum on) is also worrisome. Decades are irrelevant
on the scale of these changes. Centuries are barely relevant. We are
nowhere near the warmest, but the coldest century in the last 10,000
years ended a mere 300 years ago, and corresponded almost perfectly with
the Maunder minimum in solar activity.

...
Sadly, it is all too likely that this is precisely what is
at stake in climate research. If there is no threat of catastrophe — and
as I said, prior to the hockey stick nobody had the slightest bit of
luck convincing anyone that the sky was falling because global climate
today is geologically unremarkable in every single way except that we happen to be living in it
instead of analyzing it in a geological record — then there is little
incentive to fund the enormous amount of work being done on climate
science. There is even less incentive to spend trillions of dollars of other people’s money
(and some of our own) to ameliorate a “threat” that might well be pure
moonshine, quite possibly ignoring an even greater threat of movement in
the exact opposite direction to the one the IPCC anticipates.

Why am I a skeptic? Because I recognize the true degree of our ignorance in addressing this supremely difficult problem,
while at the same time as a mere citizen I weigh civilization and its
benefits against draconian energy austerity on the basis of no actual evidence that global climate is in any way behaving unusually on a geological time scale.




Well, I spent a couple of hours reading the article, the comments, and the original study.

I found the original scientific study very interesting.  Now, it is first important to note that study of tree rings was localized.  It shows a slow decrease in temperatures of (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years as opposed to the global change of -.21C.

Actually, the study confirms that we were tracking a cooling trend and only disagrees about the local change as opposed to global change.  It also confirms the more recent increases of global temperatures.  The authors(s) were primarily interesing in Milankovitch cycles.

If one take what this study says, then we should be in a continued cooling trend, and not a warming trend, and that MAN is forcing even greater change as he is countering what should still be a cooling.

In short, the author of the article you cited distorted a scientific study to support wild claims of “debunking’.  Funny, how deniers grab on to ONE scientific study and say that THIS ONE is valid, when hundreds of others are all in agreement, but that is “junk science”. But, again, this study, if you read the original, says nothing that the denier author purports.


Funny how a great deal of the comments were political, rather than scientific.  A lot of, na, na, naaah, na, na, I won’t listen, and you are an idiot for giving facts to us deniers.  It is hilarious, and so like here.  Plus a lot of right wing political ranting.

But, hey, read the original study and be enloightened.

Here is another fun one.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm)


Anyways, thanks OS, that was fun.  I learned more about Milankovitch cycles which I knew about, but now have a better understanding.

But, since you want to accept one scientific study, why do you refuse so many others that all agree that climate change is real?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on July 14, 2012, 07:48:55 AM
Why do you blame those on the left, and let those on the right get a free pass?

For the same reason that you frequently disagree with those on the right, while giving those on the left a free pass.

It's what we believe.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 14, 2012, 09:09:55 AM
For the same reason that you frequently disagree with those on the right, while giving those on the left a free pass.

It's what we believe.
The next time I state "All you righties" please call me on it.

I've been trying to stick with individuals, instead of generalities. I will admit I have done it myself in the past however.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 14, 2012, 03:00:16 PM
In other news, Las Vegas, Nevada, has had more rain in the last 24 hours, than we have had in the last 24 days.

(If there is any exaggeration here, it is completely unintentional. They had 0.5 inches yesterday, and are having another storm now).
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 14, 2012, 04:48:19 PM
In other news, Las Vegas, Nevada, has had more rain in the last 24 hours, than we have had in the last 24 days.

(If there is any exaggeration here, it is completely unintentional. They had 0.5 inches yesterday, and are having another storm now).
http://www.rense.com/general10/yuk.htm (http://www.rense.com/general10/yuk.htm)

Yucca Mountain, NV Floods
Threaten To Spread Radiation
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 15, 2012, 02:08:00 AM
In other news, Las Vegas, Nevada, has had more rain in the last 24 hours, than we have had in the last 24 days.

(If there is any exaggeration here, it is completely unintentional. They had 0.5 inches yesterday, and are having another storm now).

Uhh Monsoon season.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 15, 2012, 02:09:15 AM
[url]http://www.rense.com/general10/yuk.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.rense.com/general10/yuk.htm[/url])

Yucca Mountain, NV Floods
Threaten To Spread Radiation


Uhhh we are talking about climate change (and the lack of science thereof) not your inane S#!T!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 15, 2012, 03:37:04 AM
Uhh Monsoon season.
LOL, they don't have monsoon season in Nevada.

http://www.lvol.com/lvoleg/hist/weather.html (http://www.lvol.com/lvoleg/hist/weather.html)

Month      Max Temperature        Min Temperature        Avg. Temperature      Avg. Precip

July               106° F   41° C             76° F   25° C         91° F   33° C    0.35 in.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 15, 2012, 06:41:13 AM
Uhhh we are talking about climate change (and the lack of science thereof) not your inane S#!T!
Please explain how my post is not relevent to climate change.
I am tired of your personal attacks, if you haven't noticed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on July 15, 2012, 06:50:24 AM
http://johncwalton.com/Research/Yucca%20Mountain%20Region%20Groundwater/028.pdf (http://johncwalton.com/Research/Yucca%20Mountain%20Region%20Groundwater/028.pdf)

Climate Change Effects on Yucca Mountain Region Groundwater Recharge
Arturo Woocay and John C. Walton
Environmental Science and Engineering, University of Texas at El Paso, 500 W. University Ave., El Paso, TX, 79968

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on July 15, 2012, 09:15:39 AM
LOL, they don't have monsoon season in Nevada.

[url]http://www.lvol.com/lvoleg/hist/weather.html[/url] ([url]http://www.lvol.com/lvoleg/hist/weather.html[/url])

Month      Max Temperature        Min Temperature        Avg. Temperature      Avg. Precip

July               106° F   41° C             76° F   25° C         91° F   33° C    0.35 in.


Are you SURE those numbers aren't for Michigan?   ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 16, 2012, 01:33:42 AM
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/m/b/4/Global-Warming-Denial.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SMASH on July 16, 2012, 03:03:54 AM
Please explain how my post is not relevent to climate change.
I am tired of your personal attacks, if you haven't noticed.
Cause you found it first.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SMASH on July 16, 2012, 03:05:24 AM
([url]http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/m/b/4/Global-Warming-Denial.jpg[/url])

See the big orange thing above the bird?

It makes thing warm.

It's been doing it for a long time.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on July 16, 2012, 03:32:25 AM
FB,

LOL.... REALLY?  ARE YOU SERIOUS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsoon)

I will skip to the pertinant text.

North America
 
The North American monsoon (NAM) occurs from late June or early July into September, originating over Mexico and spreading into the southwest United States by mid-July. It affects Mexico along the Sierra Madre Occidental as well as Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, West Texas and California. It pushes as far west as the Peninsular Ranges and Transverse Ranges of Southern California, but rarely reaches the coastal strip (a wall of desert thunderstorms only a half-hour's drive away is a common summer sight from the sunny skies along the coast during the monsoon). The North American monsoon is known to many as the Summer, Southwest, Mexican or Arizona monsoon.[23][24] It is also sometimes called the Desert monsoon as a large part of the affected area are the Mojave and Sonoran deserts

HOLY JESUS CHIRST!!!!!  LAS VEGAS GOT A HALF INCH OF RAIN!  MUST BE F-ING CLIMATE CHANGE!

OR NOT!

Try harder!!!!!!... noaa.gov is also saved as one of my "favorites".

It snows in Vegas occasionally too!  That will not be the result of climate change either, just so we can get out ahead of yet another ridiculous post!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 16, 2012, 10:51:52 AM
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html)

I keep wanting to believe it's settled.  Yet, I keep finding articles like this.  Plus, no one can tell me what the cost will be to 'fix' the problem, who's gonna pay for it, and how we'll know the 'fix' worked.

From the article:

In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.


Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34).  Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007.  Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80% confident."  Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement.  Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 25, 2012, 12:42:29 PM
Ice melt found across 97 percent of Greenland, satellites show
(http://m.static.newsvine.com/servista/imagesizer?file=miguel-llanosA1241961-B112-6A33-4BFB-0BD62DCF4292.jpg&width=380)

Three satellites found that 97 percent of Greenland -- the land mass second only to Antarctica for its volume of ice -- underwent a thaw never before seen in 33 years of satellite tracking, NASA reported Tuesday.

Satellite experts at first didn't trust their readings, especially since they showed an incredible acceleration. Over four days, Greenland's ice sheet -- which covers 683,000 square miles -- went from 40 percent in thaw to nearly entirely in thaw.

"This was so extraordinary that at first I questioned the result: Was this real or was it due to a data error?" Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif., said in NASA's statement about the findings.

Scientists on the ground in Greenland had been reporting an unusually warm summer thaw, including damage at a snow airfield and strong runoff threatening a bridge, Tom Wagner, who manages NASA's ice research programs, told NBC News.

Ice cores from Greenland's highest region do reveal that such island-wide thaws have happened every 150 years or so, at least over the last few thousand years, but the fear now is that it might occur much more frequently due to warming sea and air temperatures.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/24/12927340-ice-melt-found-across-97-percent-of-greenland-satellites-show?lite (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/24/12927340-ice-melt-found-across-97-percent-of-greenland-satellites-show?lite)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 25, 2012, 01:50:43 PM
[url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html[/url] ([url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html[/url])

I keep wanting to believe it's settled.  Yet, I keep finding articles like this.  Plus, no one can tell me what the cost will be to 'fix' the problem, who's gonna pay for it, and how we'll know the 'fix' worked.

From the article:

In plain English: the IPCC reports are not peer-reviewed.

In other words: authors are selected from a "club" of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.


Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony "confidence intervals" and estimates of "certainty" in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34).  Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007.  Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as "80% confident."  Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.

The IAC authors say it is "not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty" (p. 34), a huge understatement.  Unfortunately, the IAC authors recommend an equally fraudulent substitute, called "level of understanding scale," which is more mush-mouth for "consensus."




From your cited article...

.B. A reader reported being unable to find my IAC quotations in the IAC report. I checked and discovered that the version of the IAC report I cite was a "pre-publication version" posted online at the time the report was first announced.

That was the only version of the IAC report available when I wrote about it at the time it was released, on 8/31/2010. I confess, I pulled up that unpublished essay and modified it when the IPCC issued its news release some two weeks ago, creating the article that appears here at American Thinker. It did not occur to me that the final version of the report would differ so much from the pre-publication version as to cause this problem.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21eqGsxVw (http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21eqGsxVw)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on July 25, 2012, 02:04:03 PM
Still no climate change in my yard.  The grass is yellow, the ground is cracked and the weeds are growing.  :-\   How long has it been since we have had a good rain?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on July 25, 2012, 02:05:57 PM
Still no climate change in my yard.  The grass is yellow, the ground is cracked and the weeds are growing.  :-\   How long has it been since we have had a good rain?

It's been over three months for me, Erie.  Hopefully we will get some rain tomorrow.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 25, 2012, 02:50:57 PM
It's been over three months for me, Erie.  Hopefully we will get some rain tomorrow.
I know of a few fields that have constant irrigation and it looks like the plants there belong in the Amazon rain forest, however, I shudder to think about their electric bill for pumping all that water. I'm sure the skyrocketing grain prices will help them out though.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 26, 2012, 02:21:04 PM
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/603446_467197303291253_1993695995_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 26, 2012, 02:50:17 PM
Why The Recent Extreme Heat Wave Is About To Become Permanent

1800 high temperatures broken in 7 days

Oh, 47 seconds in, you have to see the SUV flying through the air because the heat caused the highway to buckle.

Watching the Derecho go from Chicago to the eastern sea board was pretty cool too.

40,000 daily heat records broken so far this year. More than 2 times all of last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0NrS2L6KcE)

Welcome to the rest of our lives.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on July 26, 2012, 03:10:49 PM
So if we don't surpass these records next year does that mean that global warming ended?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: family man on July 26, 2012, 03:19:41 PM
I remember how hot and dry it was in the summer of 1988. Then in 1992 it was cool and rainy. All this talk about the end of the world and hot temps are here forever is nonsense. :o
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 26, 2012, 03:26:47 PM
Good catch Duck.  Does this make the rest of the article illegitimate?

Shoot the messenger. The heck with the message.

...
Finally, the IAC noted, "the lack of a conflict of interest and disclosure policy for IPCC leaders and Lead Authors was a concern raised by a number of individuals who were interviewed by the Committee or provided written input" as well as "the practice of scientists responsible for writing IPCC assessments reviewing their own work.  The Committee did not investigate the basis of these claims, which is beyond the mandate of this review" (p. 46).

Too bad, because these are both big issues in light of recent revelations that a majority of the authors and contributors to some chapters of the IPCC reports are environmental activists, not scientists at all.  That's a structural problem with the IPCC that could dwarf the big problems already reported.

So on June 27, nearly two years after these bombshells fell (without so much as a raised eyebrow by the mainstream media in the U.S. -- go ahead and try Googling it), the IPCC admits that it was all true and promises to do better for its next report.  Nothing to see here...keep on moving.



Besides, how many of us have wished for a warm 75-80 degree Christmas?  I can't wait!

From your cited article...

.B. A reader reported being unable to find my IAC quotations in the IAC report. I checked and discovered that the version of the IAC report I cite was a "pre-publication version" posted online at the time the report was first announced.

That was the only version of the IAC report available when I wrote about it at the time it was released, on 8/31/2010. I confess, I pulled up that unpublished essay and modified it when the IPCC issued its news release some two weeks ago, creating the article that appears here at American Thinker. It did not occur to me that the final version of the report would differ so much from the pre-publication version as to cause this problem.


Read more: [url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21eqGsxVw[/url] ([url]http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz21eqGsxVw[/url])
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 26, 2012, 03:29:05 PM
Blasphemy!  You climate denier you.  Give us (whoever us may be) all your money so we can fix (i.e. make worse) this imaginary problem with unworkable solutions.

I remember how hot and dry it was in the summer of 1988. Then in 1992 it was cool and rainy. All this talk about the end of the world and hot temps are here forever is nonsense. :o
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on July 26, 2012, 03:51:54 PM
Blasphemy!  You climate denier you.  Give us (whoever us may be) all your money so we can fix (i.e. make worse) this imaginary problem with unworkable solutions.

Very interesting, since you have the very irrational thought that someone wants to take all of your money to fix it then nothing should be done.  Just curious, do you change the oil in your car, or do you claim it costs money and leave it a few hundred thousand miles?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 26, 2012, 04:23:26 PM
I pay someone to change the oil in my car.  I know what it will cost, and I know what I am receiving in return. Unlike spending to stop climate change. No one knows what it will cost, nor will they know what they are getting in return.  For some reason, that sounds like most government programs.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: family man on July 26, 2012, 07:01:32 PM
Blasphemy!  You climate denier you.  Give us (whoever us may be) all your money so we can fix (i.e. make worse) this imaginary problem with unworkable solutions.

That's another thing that sticks in my craw. The ones making a buck off all of this are the ones crying the sky is falling. Cough, Al Gore, cough.

If the internet (and MT) existed back in 1988, we would have been having the same conversations. But Al hadn't invented it yet.  ???
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on July 26, 2012, 07:18:15 PM
Blasphemy!  You climate denier you.  Give us (whoever us may be) all your money so we can fix (i.e. make worse) this imaginary problem with unworkable solutions.

This is where you become a complete idiot...This is NOT about money!

The solutions are there and have been since the 80's

Why are you so against alternatives to fossil fuels, your stubbornness is maddening...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on July 26, 2012, 08:04:45 PM

The solutions are there and have been since the 80's


If the solutions were there, the free market would have capitalized on it.  Until it makes economic sense, the solution is not there.

If you think the govt. can force these 'solutions', I'd beg to differ.  Though they can throw an awful lot of money at failed green companies..who just happen to donate big bucks right back to the same ones giving them these 'loans/subsidies'.

While your concern for the environment is commendable, improved technology through the free market does improve life and the environment for all.  With the new finds in natural gas, who knows, maybe something will come of it that will replace dirty coal and oil.  But it won't come from the rock scientists in DC.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 27, 2012, 10:54:16 AM
If the solutions were there, the free market would have capitalized on it.  Until it makes economic sense, the solution is not there.

If you think the govt. can force these 'solutions', I'd beg to differ.  Though they can throw an awful lot of money at failed green companies..who just happen to donate big bucks right back to the same ones giving them these 'loans/subsidies'.

While your concern for the environment is commendable, improved technology through the free market does improve life and the environment for all.  With the new finds in natural gas, who knows, maybe something will come of it that will replace dirty coal and oil.  But it won't come from the rock scientists in DC.
I agree with Baggins....it's not about money (and his other sentiment as well  ;D)
Not to mention all the jobs that could be created.
Climate change is very real.
You righties running with every false tidbit intended to create doubt has caused great harm.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on July 27, 2012, 11:50:00 AM

Climate change is very real.

Actually in that last video I posted in this thread, the President of Exxon-Mobil acknowledged the same thing. His reply however was, "We'll adapt".
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 27, 2012, 03:30:54 PM
Global Warning: Fighting Against GOP Climate Change Deniers in Washington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5VouJ7_jmU&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on July 29, 2012, 09:43:53 PM
Koch-funded climate change skeptic reverses course

The verdict is in: Global warming is occurring and emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity are the main cause.

This, according to Richard A. Muller, professor of physics at UC Berkeley, MacArthur Fellow and co-founder of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Never mind that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and hundreds of other climatologists around the world came to such conclusions years ago. The difference now is the source: Muller is a long-standing, colorful critic of prevailing climate science, and the Berkeley project was heavily funded by the Charles Koch Charitable Foundation, which, along with its libertarian petrochemical billionaire founder Charles G. Koch, has a considerable history of backing groups that deny climate change.

More here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-kochfunded-climate-change-skeptic-reverses-course-20120729,0,7372823.story)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 01, 2012, 01:53:01 AM
Flashback: Snowstorm Disproves Global Warming on Fox News

Flashback: Snowstorm Disproves Global Warming on Fox News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNlR2dd435Y&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 01, 2012, 09:29:27 AM
I agree with Baggins....it's not about money (and his other sentiment as well  ;D)

It's not about the money?  And then 2 posts later, you involve the Koch brothers?  If it's not about the money, then what is it about?

Not to mention all the jobs that could be created.

Like all the govt. funded companies that went bankrupt and closed their doors?  Doesn't Monroe make some wind turbine towers?  How much longer do you think they'll be in business?

Climate change is very real.

Yes, because that's what climate does.  Any other nuggets of wisdom?

You righties running with every false tidbit intended to create doubt has caused great harm.

Great harm?  Such as?  And your solution is what? more copy/pasta?  hahahahaha.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 02, 2012, 03:28:45 AM
One of the coolest and wettest summers on record in Europe.  Making the "Summer" Olympics a real blast for the spectators. 

We are in a prolonged La Nina pattern which makes it HOT in the US, cooler elsewhere.  August already and not a major hurricane either (although Ernesto might have a say since it is far enough south) to help break the dry spell east of the Rockies.  In fact the only tropical systems that have developed have been weak or subtropical in nature in the Atlantic basin, a far cry from the dire predictions of the "experts".  Not to worry though, in October and November anything that swirls in the Atlantic and looks like it has showers around the center will surely become a named storm after "careful satellite analysis".
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 03, 2012, 12:16:22 PM
Massive Fish Kills Across The United States (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7KNlNs9GA4&feature=plcp#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 03, 2012, 12:57:38 PM
"Humans are almost entirely the cause" of climate change, according to a scientist who once doubted that global warming even existed. Last year, Richard Muller walked back years of climate change skepticism in light of new research. But Sunday's comments go one step further. Muller wrote in an NYT op-ed that after exhaustive research, he believes that an increase of greenhouse gases can be closely linked to the rise in the earth's temperature...".* What do the Koch brothers think of this?

Climate Change Skeptic Does 180 On Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQhStjOJWVs&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 03, 2012, 01:40:10 PM
If the solutions were there, the free market would have capitalized on it.  Until it makes economic sense, the solution is not there.

If you think the govt. can force these 'solutions', I'd beg to differ.  Though they can throw an awful lot of money at failed green companies..who just happen to donate big bucks right back to the same ones giving them these 'loans/subsidies'.

While your concern for the environment is commendable, improved technology through the free market does improve life and the environment for all.  With the new finds in natural gas, who knows, maybe something will come of it that will replace dirty coal and oil.  But it won't come from the rock scientists in DC.


In a way, I was wrong to say it's not about money, when it is...That is, only if the moneys going into the right hands. People scream about money lost on failed green businesses, but keep quiet about the billions thrown at the oil companies.  Your statement to the point that it isn't economic sense is the heart of the problem.  The technology to move away from using fossil fuels IS there. They fail to take hold because of a failure on our part to support it. The hold up is complacency...What we have now works, so most don't think it needs to be changed, regardless of consequence. Do you think the people who throw trash out their windows down the freeway care of the environment...???

  I wish the answer was painless, but I've come to find out sometimes you need to go through a little pain to be better off in the end.

What would have to change in your opinion for green energy's to be viable enough and economically sound...?  What cost are you afraid of that you're not paying already?  Our energy costs keep rising while still using the old ways...So whats the difference, if it's coal or the wind?  Wind is free while coal cost money to use.  Wind is clean while coal is a pollutant...Same goes for solar.  Sure the start up cost is higher, but in the long run you can't lose.





 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 03, 2012, 02:29:08 PM
Here's another thought to ponder on...If all of the worlds reserves were used, they would produce 5 time the amount of carbon that was determined acceptable...We are going to have to change our ways or be living in Mad Max time in our lifetimes...And, that's not a joke!

In fact, I wish the oil would have run out before this, but it's already set for our doom, well, maybe not our doom(we can adapt, though it shouldn't be the answer), but the doom for the planet.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 03, 2012, 02:43:53 PM
Here's another thought to ponder on...If all of the worlds reserves were used, they would produce 5 time the amount of carbon that was determined acceptable...We are going to have to change our ways or be living in Mad Max time in our lifetimes...And, that's not a joke!

In fact, I wish the oil would have run out before this, but it's already set for our doom, well, maybe not our doom(we can adapt, though it shouldn't be the answer), but the doom for the planet.

LOL too many fantasy books/movies Baggins.

So you think we can use up all of the reserves in our lifetime to get this Mad Max effect?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 03, 2012, 03:38:57 PM
LOL too many fantasy books/movies Baggins.

So you think we can use up all of the reserves in our lifetime to get this Mad Max effect?

No, that isn't what I said...

I said if all of the reserves we have today were to be used it will produce 5 time the amount of carbon that we have deemed acceptable.  The atmosphere can only hold so much before it becomes a serious problem.  You don't believe any of this so it's pointless to try to explain it any further.  As for the Mad Max comment, I said I wish the fuel would run out so we would be forced to turn to alternatives, as with everything man does, we wait til it's a crisis before any action is taken...And that's just DUMB!

Laugh all you want, and keep your head in the sand...(tar sands that is)... 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 03, 2012, 04:40:13 PM
You said we will be living like Mad Max in our lifetimes. So how exactly is this possible then if fuel won't run out?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 05, 2012, 07:12:29 PM
http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-deniers-own-study-changes-his-mind.html (http://www.care2.com/causes/climate-change-deniers-own-study-changes-his-mind.html)

Professor Richard Muller, one of the nation’s foremost climate change deniers, has finally changed his views on global warming thanks to a new study… his own. After conducting research on the subject, Muller says he has had a “total turnaround” and is no longer skeptical about the threats of greenhouse gases, according to The Guardian.

The results of Muller’s study, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature or BEST project, showed that the land temperature has risen 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 250 years, with the majority of that occurring in the last 50 years alone. Even more damningly, the data suggests that the increase is due almost exclusively to human production of greenhouse gases.

Muller, a physicist, admits he was surprised by the findings, but will not deny climate change anymore. “As scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds,” he said.

The results of the BEST study are even more impressive considering the source. Charles Koch, one of the multi-billionaire brothers who are well known for bankrolling the campaign to deny climate change, funded the research in large part. Fortunately, Muller made an honest go of the study rather than just melding the data to fix his preexisting assumptions.

What distinguishes BEST from previous studies is the massive number of earth temperatures collected to use as the data. Muller’s team amassed over 14 million temperature observations from over 40,000 places, some going back as far as 1753. That’s more than five times the number of temperatures used in previous climate change studies. Furthermore, the data was analyzed by a computer, not humans, to eliminate the bias factor that previous global warming deniers have cited.

The study also examined other popular theories for temperature rise like increased solar activity and volcano eruptions, but neither showed much of a correlation. “Much to my surprise, by far the best match came to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide,” said Muller.

During the study, another leading climate change denier, Anthony Watts, was consulted on the methodology and found it to be a good way to analyze the topic. “I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong,” Watts said. Since BEST’s results have been released, however, Watts has waffled on this position.

Although scholars generally wait to have their research peer reviewed before releasing all of the data, Muller published the complete study early on to address the inevitable concerns from other climate change skeptics.

“I embarked on this analysis to answer questions that, to my mind, had not been answered,” said Muller. “I hope that the Berkeley Earth analysis will help settle the scientific debate regarding global warming and its human causes.”

Given the current rate of carbon emissions, Muller predicts that the temperature of the earth will rise an additional 1.5 degrees in the upcoming 50 years. He concedes that now “comes the difficult part: agreeing across the political and diplomatic spectrum about what can and should be done.”

Here’s hoping that we don’t have to wait for every climate change denier to conduct his or her own research before acknowledging and addressing the growing problem of global warming.


Other sources: http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120805/OPINION04/308050037/Neela-Banerjee-climate-change-denier-no-more (http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120805/OPINION04/308050037/Neela-Banerjee-climate-change-denier-no-more)

http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html (http://news.yahoo.com/skeptic-finds-now-agrees-global-warming-real-142616605.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on August 05, 2012, 08:26:22 PM
If ancient history is a good source for what has happened in the past, global warming will just keep on chugging, regardless of what we weaklings do to try to stop it.  Could Man have stopped the ice ages? I sorta doubt it. we are at the mercy of nature, no matter how powerful we think we are. We've only been here a short while, in the larger scheme of things. It is interesting that in the span of a few years, the "chicken littles" have changed from global warming to climate change. Of course, climate changes. I have flown over mountain ranges which, without a doubt, were gouged out by glaciers inexorably sliding South. Nature does what nature does, and yet we think we can stop that from happening? I sorta doubt it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 05, 2012, 11:31:25 PM
I sorta doubt it.
Spoken like a true scientist. 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 05, 2012, 11:37:10 PM
You said we will be living like Mad Max in our lifetimes. So how exactly is this possible then if fuel won't run out?

OK, it was a bad analogy... 8*   How about something on the lines of "the road"...?

Go back and read my explanation, you seem to be not getting the point...Forget Mad Max and use that brain. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 06, 2012, 08:59:33 AM
OK, it was a bad analogy... 8*   How about something on the lines of "the road"...?

Go back and read my explanation, you seem to be not getting the point...Forget Mad Max and use that brain. 

Trust me Baggins I have to use my brain every time I read your posts to try and sort out the ridiculous BS from something of any substance; ie Mad Max analogies.

Guess I'd better stop searching for that limited '73 Ford XB Falcon Hardtop then.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 06, 2012, 04:17:57 PM
Spoken like a true scientist. 8*

Well today a "scientist" would see a 20 degree temp shift in an hour and call it "extreme weather" while the rest of us would call it a cold front.

Every weather event is sensationalized in today's world for the purpose of furthering support for "climate change".  They used to say "global warming" but that all fell apart when we had a brutally cold winter a few years ago so now it is "climate change".  This way the climate change crowd can now win no matter what happens too cold, too hot, too wet, too dry, normal for longer than normal... ALL CLIMATE CHANGE.  The movement will never end, just morph and transform to make ridiculous what is 100% usual.

The earth is going through a warm cycle, we all get it, it has happened before probably will again long after we are gone.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 07, 2012, 10:17:18 AM
James Hansen's latest findings linking extreme weather to climate change is science society cannot afford to ignore.

The first scientist to alert Americans to the prospect that human-caused climate change and global warming was already upon us was NASA climatologist James Hansen. In a sweltering Senate hall during the hot, dry summer of 1988, Hansen announced that "it is time to stop waffling.... The evidence is pretty strong that the [human-amplified] greenhouse effect is here."

At the time, many scientists felt his announcement to be premature. I was among them.

I was a young graduate student researching the importance of natural – rather than human-caused – variations in temperature, and I felt that the "signal" of human-caused climate change had not yet emerged from the "noise" of natural, long-term climate variation. As I discuss in my book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, scientists by their very nature tend to be conservative, even reticent, when it comes to discussing findings and observations that lie at the forefront of our understanding and that aren't yet part of the "accepted" body of scientific knowledge.

Dire warning

Hansen, it turns out, was right, and the critics were wrong. Rather than being reckless, as some of his critics charged, his announcement to the world proved to be prescient – and his critics were proven overly cautious.

Given the prescience of Hansen's science, we would be unwise to ignore his latest, more dire warning.

In a paper published today in the prestigious journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Hansen and two colleagues argue convincingly that climate change is now not only upon us, but in fact we are fully immersed in it. Much of the extreme weather we have witnessed in recent years almost certainly contains a human-induced component.

Hansen, in his latest paper, shows that the increase in probability of hot summers due to global warming is such that what was once considered an unusually hot summer has now become typical, and what was once considered typical will soon become a thing of the past – a summer too improbably cool to anymore expect.

We need to view this summer's extreme weather in this wider context.

Not random

It is not simply a set of random events occurring in isolation, but part of a broader emerging pattern. We are seeing, in much of the extreme weather we are experiencing, the "loading of the weather dice." Over the past decade, records for daily maximum high temperatures in the U.S. have been broken at twice the rate we would expect from chance alone. Think of this as rolling double sixes twice as often as you'd expect – something you would readily notice in a high stakes game of dice. Thus far this year, that ratio is close to 10 to 1.  That's double sixes coming up ten times as often as you expect.

So the record-breaking heat this summer over so much of the United States, where records that have stood since the Dust Bowl years of the 1930s are now dropping like flies, isn't just a fluke of nature; it is the loading of the weather dice playing out in real time.

The record heat – and the dry soils associated with it – played a role in the unprecedented forest fires that wrought death and destruction in Colorado and New Mexico. It played a role in the hot and bone-dry conditions over the nation's breadbasket that has decimated U.S. agricultural yields. It played a role in the unprecedented 50 percent of the U.S. finding itself in extreme drought.

Other threats

Climate change is also threatening us in other ways of course, subjecting our coastal cities to increased erosion and inundation from rising sea level, and massive flooding events associated with an atmosphere that has warmed by nearly 2˚F, holding roughly 4 percent more water vapor than it used to – water vapor that is available to feed flooding rains when atmospheric conditions are right.

The state of Oklahoma became the hottest state ever with last summer's record heat. It is sadly ironic that the state's senior senator, Republican James Inhofe, has dismissed human-caused climate change as the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." Just last week he insisted that concern over the impacts of climate change has "completely collapsed." This as Oklahoma City has just seen 18 days in a row over 100˚F (with more predicted to follow), Tulsa saw 112˚F Sunday, and 11 separate wildfires are burning in the state, with historic Route 66 and other state highways and interstates all closed.

The time for debate about the reality of human-caused climate change has now passed. We can have a good faith debate about how to deal with the problem – how to reduce future climate change and adapt to what is already upon us to reduce the risks that climate change poses to society. But we can no longer simply bury our heads in the sand.

Michael E. Mann is a member of the Pennsylvania State University faculty, where he directs the Penn State Earth System Science Center. He is author of The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, which describes his role as an accidental and reluctant public figure in the debate over human-caused climate change.
http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/08/weather-extremes (http://wwwp.dailyclimate.org/tdc-newsroom/2012/08/weather-extremes)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 07, 2012, 03:19:42 PM
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=42563 (http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=42563)

...It doesn’t fool us, this “scientific consensus,” and I daresay there are millions upon millions of us who will not be herded or packed and stacked or prevented from owning private property, etc., so that those who have adopted a ruling elite position, along with the science and results they fund in some vicious cycle of graft, can socially engineer the planet in a way they find pleasing.  An increase in people means a (potential) increase in technological and intellectual development; and from there is where will come solutions to any “problems” caused by global climate change.  The marketplace finds solutions. UN bureaucrats, cynical politicians, and publicly funded “climate scientists” find “problems” in need of their collectivist solutions — and if they happen to get rich along the way, well, that’s just purely coincidental!Constraining humanity — herding them and treating them like livestock so that the global masterminds can return earth to their romantic vision of some bucolic state of nature (while they, naturally, will get to retain all the lavish trappings of wealth and privilege, which they deserve, for saving the earth and stuff from the disgusting, mewling ambulatory masses and their ugly ugly breeding) — isn’t the way to progress. Over the past 50 years, the US has had the luxury of engaging in environmental-friendly programs, passing increasingly onerous regulations to protect the earth from the filth we exhale, belch out of our factories, dump in our streams,  leech into our water tables, etc.  And yet the earth, we’re told, is not responding quite yet. Meaning, we need more and more and more control over the movement and living arrangements and land ownership rights and family sizes of the destructive masses.  We need to control energy supplies, food supplies, water collection.  Only then will the earth and its resources prove “sustainable.”  And if that means that you as a human must sacrifice for the good of the global village — stop your sprawl, cut back on your energy usage, decrease your productivity (which will increase your means of attaining private property, while simultaneously hamstringing ingenuity, which is a feature and not a bug to the masterminds who want you tamed) — then you, citizen of the world, owe it to the earth to submit.

Well, here’s the truth:  many of us won’t follow along.  We won’t be treated as cattle.  We won’t be constrained by masterminds.  We won’t submit.  We’ll live free or we’ll die.

Simple as that.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 07, 2012, 03:25:05 PM
It's not responding yet because we need to do more.  Do you think the lack of regulation during the industrial revolution and all those toxic spills will be cleaned up in just a few years of being more enviornmental conscious?  Doesn't your bible preach about be stewards of our environment?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 07, 2012, 03:29:19 PM
[url]http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=42563[/url] ([url]http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=42563[/url])

...It doesn’t fool us, this “scientific consensus,” and I daresay there are millions upon millions of us who will not be herded or packed and stacked or prevented from owning private property, etc., so that those who have adopted a ruling elite position, along with the science and results they fund in some vicious cycle of graft, can socially engineer the planet in a way they find pleasing.  An increase in people means a (potential) increase in technological and intellectual development; and from there is where will come solutions to any “problems” caused by global climate change.  The marketplace finds solutions. UN bureaucrats, cynical politicians, and publicly funded “climate scientists” find “problems” in need of their collectivist solutions — and if they happen to get rich along the way, well, that’s just purely coincidental!Constraining humanity — herding them and treating them like livestock so that the global masterminds can return earth to their romantic vision of some bucolic state of nature (while they, naturally, will get to retain all the lavish trappings of wealth and privilege, which they deserve, for saving the earth and stuff from the disgusting, mewling ambulatory masses and their ugly ugly breeding) — isn’t the way to progress. Over the past 50 years, the US has had the luxury of engaging in environmental-friendly programs, passing increasingly onerous regulations to protect the earth from the filth we exhale, belch out of our factories, dump in our streams,  leech into our water tables, etc.  And yet the earth, we’re told, is not responding quite yet. Meaning, we need more and more and more control over the movement and living arrangements and land ownership rights and family sizes of the destructive masses.  We need to control energy supplies, food supplies, water collection.  Only then will the earth and its resources prove “sustainable.”  And if that means that you as a human must sacrifice for the good of the global village — stop your sprawl, cut back on your energy usage, decrease your productivity (which will increase your means of attaining private property, while simultaneously hamstringing ingenuity, which is a feature and not a bug to the masterminds who want you tamed) — then you, citizen of the world, owe it to the earth to submit.

Well, here’s the truth:  many of us won’t follow along.  We won’t be treated as cattle.  We won’t be constrained by masterminds.  We won’t submit.  We’ll live free or we’ll die.

Simple as that.
LOL....I see what you did there...

It's the point of view of sperm.   :D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 07, 2012, 04:25:48 PM
I'd say we're doing plenty.  What will it take for you to say that?

Do you believe the bold sentences above?

It's not responding yet because we need to do more.  Do you think the lack of regulation during the industrial revolution and all those toxic spills will be cleaned up in just a few years of being more enviornmental conscious?  Doesn't your bible preach about be stewards of our environment?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 07, 2012, 05:12:16 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_goUXtIqXzoM/TOJHfKgSLLI/AAAAAAAAAAk/zEtGQpxL_9Q/s640/global_warming_deniers_600.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 07, 2012, 05:13:06 PM
(http://www.durangobill.com/GwdLiars/GwdLiarsBeck.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 07, 2012, 05:29:28 PM
Fry,
you be sure to post some facts when you find them.  In the meantime, I'll continue to call it what it is...junk science.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on August 07, 2012, 07:18:52 PM
Fry,
you be sure to post some facts when you find them.  In the meantime, I'll continue to call it what it is...junk science.

Gravity is junk science.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 07, 2012, 08:59:51 PM
Gravity is junk science.


Great LF.  I have been extra light on my feet lately, especially when I dance.  I know a 1000 dancers who feel the same way.   If we don't do something now, we'll all fall off the earth.

We must tax everyone until the govt can fix this problem - maybe everyone should be forced to buy and wear weights.  And if you don't believe me and a 1000 dancers, you're a denier.

Does this sound as ridiculous as LF's statement? No, I didn't think so, but it sounds as ridiculous as all the chicken littles worrying about a degree in temperature change.



Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on August 07, 2012, 09:37:09 PM
Gravity is just a Socialist conspiracy to keep us down. If we lighten the tax load on the rich, they'll free us from the shackles of harsh, gravity-based oppression!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 08, 2012, 12:37:19 AM
And it must be truth, after all it is peer reviewed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 08, 2012, 08:15:29 AM
Salt, you are naive.  Climate change is a fact.  Humans caused it, fact.  What we need to do is get away from fossil fuels and go towards renewable energy.  Nuclear power is a short term fix, but we need fo go farther.  Civilian vehicles need to get a minimum of 50mpg.  This includes trucks.  Actually i think we should just ban trucks outright.  There's no need for one unless you own a business.  From there we need to give tax breaks to employers that create environmentally friendly jobs and tax polluters harshly.  Get busted violating an EPA rule, fine your business is shut down for a year and all employees get their salary for that time.

It's pretty simple, we need to think about the earth and our future as a species.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 08, 2012, 08:43:11 AM
So who decides what the correct temperature should be?  How much will it cost?  Who should participate?  Just the rich?

We've been trying to get away from fossil fuels for over 40 years.  When a viable alternative is ready, the market will respond appropriately.  But you'd rather have the jackboot of the govt. force something upon us that won't work.

As for your 'facts',  they aren't.  They are made up numbers based on limited, false data to support a point of view that is detrimental to society, intended to make certain individuals rich...think Al Gore.

I'm real tired of the 'we're all gonna die schtick'.  The country is going to h*ll in a handbasket, won't last another 50 years in it's current form, and any weather issue is a cause for alarm?  Sorry, but there are much more important things to be concerned with.

If you feel better driving a volt, using $5 lightbulbs and flushing your toilet once a day, go for it.  Just stop preaching to the rest of us how we should live our lives.


Better to respond like Lordfly.  That communist gets it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 08, 2012, 10:34:15 AM
So you're saying that the polar icecaps melting at historic rates is normal?  Are you saying that it's just a coincidence that the temperature increase follows the industrial revolution and population explosion?  Come on Salt you're smarter than that.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 08, 2012, 10:41:44 AM
So you're saying that the polar icecaps melting at historic rates is normal?  Are you saying that it's just a coincidence that the temperature increase follows the industrial revolution and population explosion?  Come on Salt you're smarter than that.


He may be smarter, but he's stuck on the assumption that climate change is a lie created for a liberal agenda to rob him of tax money he already pays...STUBBORN!

There are important issues beyond that of climate change(most importantly pointless WARS!), but to ignore it is just damn foolishness...Plain and simple!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 08, 2012, 11:11:54 AM
Just stop preaching to the rest of us how we should live our lives.


Well, how in the Hell else are you stubborn bastards going to get it...???

Live your life as you wish, but don't tell me I shouldn't be concerned about what we are doing to this planet...We friggin use it like a trash can!   Go burn some tires and take a dump in the river, because that's what you represent to me, someone that doesn't care beyond his own front door...!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 08, 2012, 11:14:13 AM
Appears old salt is receiving more credit than he deserves. The catching more flies with honey than vinegar thing doesn't work on his ilk.

Anyway, here's another news story:

New Study Links Current Events to Climate Change

 The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare that it can't be anything but man-made global warming, says a new statistical analysis from a top government scientist.

The research by a man often called the "godfather of global warming" says that the likelihood of such temperatures occurring from the 1950s through the 1980s was rarer than 1 in 300. Now, the odds are closer to 1 in 10, according to the study by NASA scientist James Hansen. He says that statistically what's happening is not random or normal, but pure and simple climate change.

"This is not some scientific theory. We are now experiencing scientific fact," Hansen told The Associated Press in an interview.

Hansen is a scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and a professor at Columbia University. But he is also a strident activist who has called for government action to curb greenhouse gases for years. While his study was published online Saturday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, it is unlikely to sway opinion among the remaining climate change skeptics.

However, several climate scientists praised the new work.

In a blunt departure from most climate research, Hansen's study — based on statistics, not the more typical climate modeling — blames these three heat waves purely on global warming:

 —Last year's devastating Texas-Oklahoma drought.

—The 2010 heat waves in Russia and the Middle East, which led to thousands of deaths.

—The 2003 European heat wave blamed for tens of thousands of deaths, especially among the elderly in France.

The analysis was written before the current drought and record-breaking temperatures that have seared much of the United States this year. But Hansen believes this too is another prime example of global warming at its worst.

More here:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/study-ties-global-warming-recent-year-heat-16931315#.UCKBHqOccg9 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/study-ties-global-warming-recent-year-heat-16931315#.UCKBHqOccg9)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 08, 2012, 11:17:32 AM

He may be smarter, but he's stuck on the assumption that climate change is a lie created for a liberal agenda to rob him of tax money he already pays...STUBBORN!

There are important issues beyond that of climate change(most importantly pointless WARS!), but to ignore it is just damn foolishness...Plain and simple!

Your first sentence is 100% accurate.  You couldn't be more correct.

As for your 2nd, no one is ignoring it.  We do plenty.  But'll it will never be enough for the left.  Who's to say how much ice there should be on the polar caps?  Historic?  Going back how far?  What about weather cycles?  I'm not sure anyone has enough info or historical data, or enough money or knowledge to say what's 'normal' or 'correct'.

Baggins,
So now you think I'm burning tires and dumping in the river for fun?  That I don't try to be a good steward?  You're missing the point altogether.

Fry,
Yep, just another story. Hasn't that liar Hansen been debunked enough already?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 08, 2012, 11:33:58 AM
How are we doing enough when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are still increasing at insane rates?  In the process we're destroying the one thing that helps us get rid of CO2.  The ocean temperatures are rising, rivers are getting so hot it's killing off native fish, we are essentially turing our earth into a lesser version of Venus.  Unfortunately a lot of people don't care about that since they will not be here when the crap really hits the fan.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 08, 2012, 11:41:19 AM
Your first sentence is 100% accurate.  You couldn't be more correct.

As for your 2nd, no one is ignoring it.  We do plenty.  But'll it will never be enough for the left.  Who's to say how much ice there should be on the polar caps?  Historic?  Going back how far?  What about weather cycles?  I'm not sure anyone has enough info or historical data, or enough money or knowledge to say what's 'normal' or 'correct'.

Baggins,
So now you think I'm burning tires and dumping in the river for fun?  That I don't try to be a good steward?  You're missing the point altogether.


No, I don't think you do those things, but your stance bares a common aspect of one who would...You call it "humbug", lies with a sinister agenda, when the simple truth is far from it, we ARE damaging our planet beyond repair...!   I'm not missing the point, you are...!  You're far too concerned with the cost of some hidden specter, that's quite frankly in my opinion blind fear...You like to bash on Al Gore for making a movie about climate change because he happened to have made money off of it(of which, he has donated to further research), but you ignore the message, and in fact want to kill the messenger.

We may do things to help the issue, but it falls drastically short of what we should have been doing, starting decades ago...I'm not sure if you really understand what I'm really trying to say...We have failed, we have acted too little and by now it seems too late...We have not changed for the better and continue to live as nothing matters but what's on TV tonight, most just don't care and those who do get nothing but ridicule.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 08, 2012, 11:45:22 AM
While the opinion of old salt is in the minority....his baseless viewpoint gives the far-right something to parrot in their campaign of spreading the seeds of doubt.

Note his vacillations between value of the science to the cost of doing anything.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: BigRedDog on August 08, 2012, 11:55:05 AM
(http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoons/environment-cartoons/global-warming-cartoons/bury-head-sand-global-warming-cartoon.gif)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 08, 2012, 11:59:20 AM
([url]http://www.chrismadden.co.uk/cartoons/environment-cartoons/global-warming-cartoons/bury-head-sand-global-warming-cartoon.gif[/url])



 ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 08, 2012, 01:07:44 PM
Salt, you are naive.

Naivity is pretty subjective.  I happen to think to depth to which you are invested in climate change is also pretty naive.

Climate change is a fact.

The climate changes every day, so in that instance I guess you are right.

Humans caused it, fact. 

No!  Theory!

What we need to do is get away from fossil fuels and go towards renewable energy. 

Agreed.  And how do we do this...

Nuclear power is a short term fix, but we need fo go farther. 

DING, DING, DING!!!!  Winner, winner.  But why is it a short term fix?  How can we go farther when nuclear is by far the biggest bang for your buck?

Civilian vehicles need to get a minimum of 50mpg.  This includes trucks.

People need to be able to afford them.

Actually i think we should just ban trucks outright.  There's no need for one unless you own a business. 

Perfect.  Good luck getting your new environmentally friendly fridge home.  So now we will have to pay someone everytime we want to buy something bigger than what will fit in the Prius?  Great... Now I will have to get groceries delivered.

From there we need to give tax breaks to employers that create environmentally friendly jobs and tax polluters harshly. 

How does say a restaurant create an "environmentally friendly" job?  What are the qualifiers of an "environmentally friendly" job?

Get busted violating an EPA rule, fine your business is shut down for a year and all employees get their salary for that time.

TAX THE RICH!!! TAX THE RICH!!!  MAKE THEM PAY!!! MAKE THEM PAY!!!

That is your message right?  We are going to make up a bunch of rules and regulations that will cripple businesses, enforce them arbitrailly, and when the business can no longer come up with the racket money you shut it down!  But in order to keep government costs down and the unemployment rate low you make those now shut down businesses pay their employees as well?  With what?  No money will be coming in... what happen when the business runs out of money to pay the non producing employees? 

I think I need a big arse bowl of whatever it is you were smoking when you came up with this plan.



How are we doing enough when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are still increasing at insane rates?

What is an insane rate?  I already provided data from a NASA scientist in this thread as to the increase in CO2 levels... they were not all that significant.

In the process we're destroying the one thing that helps us get rid of CO2.

We are?  South America might be, but WE are really good about planting trees, creating green space and preserving our forrests.  Who are the "WE" you are talking about here? 

The ocean temperatures are rising, rivers are getting so hot it's killing off native fish, we are essentially turing our earth into a lesser version of Venus.

Yup the earth is getting a little bit warmer, we all know.  Killing off native fish?  How do you know they are native?  What about all the fossils of the extinct fish from who knows how long ago?  THOSE WERE THE NATIVE FISH!!!  What killed them?  A bit of global warming?  An ice age?  Who the flip knows... WE WERE NOT HERE and HAVE NO DATA TO COMPARE OUR CURRENT SITUATION TO.

Take a drive through even just the south central part of Michigan, there are hills, creeks, rivers, etc. all carved out by glaciers.  Now I am no rocket scientist but there must have been a pretty significant climate change period of time to melt all that ice.  I can only wonder if the glaciers just pulverized and dicentigrated all the power plants, and cars the cavemen had which MUST HAVE BEEN PRODUCING ALL THAT F-ING CO2 a million years ago.

AFTER ALL CLIMATE CHANGE IS ALL MAN MADE RIGHT? 

Unfortunately a lot of people don't care about that since they will not be here when the crap really hits the fan.

Which will be when exactly?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 08, 2012, 01:36:33 PM
JBS it's pretty simple, companies have money in the bank.  If you can't do the time you shouldn't do the crime.

As for your issue with trucks, most places deliver already, and I highly doubt you couldn't fit the groceries for your family in a Prius.  They also make plenty of cars that get over 40mpg that are afordable.  I drive one and I paid less than  $14k for it brand new. 

Your argument is full of holes jbs...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 08, 2012, 02:02:55 PM
Would you try and comment over at this site?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)

They can argue better than I can.  I have tried to look at both sides, and while we do plenty, it'll never be enough for most of you.

Be sure to let me know when you've posted a comment, and under which topic.  Here are a few recent ones:

     Editorial: ‘Hansen is simply wrong’ and ‘his hypothesis is a complete and abject failure’

     Quote of the Week – Harry Reid’s Cherry Blossom Picking: FAIL

     Letter: Climate change and the Tooth Fairy

     MIT: The economic cost of increased temperatures

     NASA’s James Hansen’s big cherry pick

Now if you want to tell me that this is a biased site (funded by Koch), then make sure you add that comment along with whatever you do say.  And maybe you could check out other sites as well...they have a whole list (including AGW believer) on the right side.

And I hope none of you are OCD.
A new study has found that many people with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) are worrying about the effects of climate change and global warming. Researchers from the University of Sydney looked at patients attending an anxiety disorders clinic.

They found one-third of the patients had anxiety about the effects of climate change. Their behaviours included checking and rechecking pets water bowls, light switches, taps and stoves.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-09/worriers-have-anxiety-over-climate-change3a-study/3880372/?site=southwestvic (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-09/worriers-have-anxiety-over-climate-change3a-study/3880372/?site=southwestvic)


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 08, 2012, 02:26:11 PM
Nope, I'm not OCD, but I have been concerned about this since I was about 6.  It's pretty simple to realize that the earth has finite resources and once they're used up, that's it.  Then there's the fact we're the only species on the planet that does not live in symbiosis with it's environment.  As a species we consume and destroy, and that's about it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 08, 2012, 02:58:00 PM
Since you were 6?  And you're not OCD.  Ok.

What finite resource have we used up?  And why do you think we're the only species on the planet that does not live in symbiosis with it's environment?   I would wager that there are a few Indians who would differ with your statement.  Somebody/something has to be at the top of the food chain.   mmmmm....bacon
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 08, 2012, 03:09:34 PM
Ummm it's the earth.  It is it's own biosphere that contains a specific amount of resources.  Once we use those up we have to look to other celestial bodies to get more resources.  It's a pretty basic concept.  I mean a 6 year old was able to grasp it before all these factual numbers started getting put out.

You are right, the Native Americans did have a symbiotic relationship with their environment and then the white man came and screwed it up.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on August 08, 2012, 03:42:22 PM
... the Native Americans did have a symbiotic relationship with their environment and then the white man came and screwed it up.

Thank you!!!!

You finally said something I agree with!   :P
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lordfly on August 08, 2012, 07:15:34 PM
mmmmm....bacon

I like my bacon like I like my planets: slathered in hydrocarbons.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on August 08, 2012, 09:07:48 PM
Yep, I also like smoked bacon. Who doesn't.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on August 08, 2012, 09:15:58 PM
I am thinking the climate around my house has changed a bit.  I am going to get out the lawn mower one day soon. My weeds have started growing again.  I sure hope it starts.  I haven't had it running in over a month, maybe even closer to two months!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 09, 2012, 12:36:44 AM
JBS it's pretty simple, companies have money in the bank.  If you can't do the time you shouldn't do the crime.

As for your issue with trucks, most places deliver already, and I highly doubt you couldn't fit the groceries for your family in a Prius.  They also make plenty of cars that get over 40mpg that are afordable.  I drive one and I paid less than  $14k for it brand new. 

Your argument is full of holes jbs...

You live in a dream world!  It will be fun when you grow up and reality smacks you sqaw in the face.

You think every business in America just "has money in the bank"?  Try again.  The banks have money in the bank, insurance companies have money in the bank, scientist have money in the bank, beurocrats have money in the bank.  I am not talking a few thousand dollars either, the people who do the least to keep our economy moving have the most money Forsythia.  About the only exception to that would be BIG OIL, but feel good as you may that you might get your hands on some of their money... think again.  The very left wing dogooder politicians you will champion to write your legislation will be sure to insulate BIG OIL at all costs.  After all beurocrats need a pension too.

As for a $14K car that gets 40mpg... I have a wife, two growing kids, and two large dogs... you point me to that new car and explain to me how I am going to travel any appreciable distance with say bikes or camping gear.  Groceries for our family of four barely fits in the trunk of our full sized sedans.  But that is OK because most businesses have delivery, for which I will surely pay extra for.  No thanks, I would rather just go borrow my dad's truck, which BTW gets better gas milage than the stores delivery vehicle, so your plan would actually be a HUGE step backwards, thank you.

Like I said earlier I think it might be fun to try a bowl of what ever it is you are smoking... because it along with the peer reviewed "science" you have bought into hook line and sinker, makes your posts HILARIOUS.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 09, 2012, 12:41:02 AM
JBS it's pretty simple, companies have money in the bank.  If you can't do the time you shouldn't do the crime.

As for your issue with trucks, most places deliver already, and I highly doubt you couldn't fit the groceries for your family in a Prius.  They also make plenty of cars that get over 40mpg that are afordable.  I drive one and I paid less than  $14k for it brand new. 

Your argument is full of holes jbs...

Oh and if you could... try actually answering some of the questions I asked you.  You said my argument was full of holes, yet I noticed you didn't point any of them out, besides the vehicle claim which I am anxiously awaiting a reply to .
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 09, 2012, 07:07:15 AM
You live in a dream world!  It will be fun when you grow up and reality smacks you sqaw in the face.


Reality has smacked me in the face.  I have looked at the FACTS that were presented earlier, and through independent study, and it's very clear that humans are the cause for climate change.  There's a varitety of reasons for that climate change including the use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Quote
You think every business in America just "has money in the bank"?  Try again.  The banks have money in the bank, insurance companies have money in the bank, scientist have money in the bank, beurocrats have money in the bank.  I am not talking a few thousand dollars either, the people who do the least to keep our economy moving have the most money Forsythia.  About the only exception to that would be BIG OIL, but feel good as you may that you might get your hands on some of their money... think again.  The very left wing dogooder politicians you will champion to write your legislation will be sure to insulate BIG OIL at all costs.  After all beurocrats need a pension too.


Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.  We need much stricter EPA penalities because it's easier for companies to pay off fines then it is to abide by those regulations.  Let's hit them where it hurts.

Quote
As for a $14K car that gets 40mpg... I have a wife, two growing kids, and two large dogs... you point me to that new car and explain to me how I am going to travel any appreciable distance with say bikes or camping gear.  Groceries for our family of four barely fits in the trunk of our full sized sedans.  But that is OK because most businesses have delivery, for which I will surely pay extra for.  No thanks, I would rather just go borrow my dad's truck, which BTW gets better gas milage than the stores delivery vehicle, so your plan would actually be a HUGE step backwards, thank you.


Hmm I drive a Scion IQ.  I can fit myself, and two other people inside with plenty of room for camping gear.  The way I see it, if you're going to spend that kind of cash to have that family you should make sure you can afford a vehicle that is both enviromentally friendly and can get you to where you need.  I do know that most Prius are cheaper than SUV's and they get incredible gas mileage.

Quote
Like I said earlier I think it might be fun to try a bowl of what ever it is you are smoking... because it along with the peer reviewed "science" you have bought into hook line and sinker, makes your posts HILARIOUS.


Want more proof of global warming, here you go.  You can deny the facts all you want because it's convienent for you, but in the long run your stubborness is going to wipe your decendents off the planet. 

http://change.nature.org/your-climate-stories/?src=CPC.AWG.CE2.AG83.CC58.CL2.MT4.KW1250&gclid=CJrNlbqz2rECFYlQOgodh0wAJg (http://change.nature.org/your-climate-stories/?src=CPC.AWG.CE2.AG83.CC58.CL2.MT4.KW1250&gclid=CJrNlbqz2rECFYlQOgodh0wAJg)

http://co2now.org/ (http://co2now.org/)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm)

Quote
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 09, 2012, 09:11:03 AM
[url]http://change.nature.org/your-climate-stories/?src=CPC.AWG.CE2.AG83.CC58.CL2.MT4.KW1250&gclid=CJrNlbqz2rECFYlQOgodh0wAJg[/url] ([url]http://change.nature.org/your-climate-stories/?src=CPC.AWG.CE2.AG83.CC58.CL2.MT4.KW1250&gclid=CJrNlbqz2rECFYlQOgodh0wAJg[/url])

[url]http://co2now.org/[/url] ([url]http://co2now.org/[/url])

[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm[/url])

[url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm[/url])



http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55benefitspressrelease.php (http://www.co2science.org/education/book/2011/55benefitspressrelease.php)

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/my_boxing_lesson_with_global_warming_bill.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/08/my_boxing_lesson_with_global_warming_bill.html)

See how easy this is?  AGW is not a settled science.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 09, 2012, 09:49:10 AM
Actually it's been a settled science for decades now.  It's just inconvienent for you to admit.  The one website is obviously a conservative blog where the writer says that Obama will bankrupt the country, which is an all out lie, and the other website which uses a very basic scientific concept, "Plants like CO2", and extrapoltates it without considering other variables.  Here's a similar analogy. Food is good for people because it helps them grow.  Now that doesn't specify what kind of food or how much food is good for a person.  Just like you can kill a plant with too much water, you can kill a plant with too much CO2.

Personally I'll err on the side of caution on this.  But then again I don't really have a dog in this fight.  I have no kids, I'm not having any, and I'll leave people like you to lead this world into one similar to the movie Idiocracy. It's sad I care more about the future than someone who actually has some vested interest in it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on August 09, 2012, 11:30:46 AM
The problem, be it real or not, is going to take a global effort to fix if the root cause is industrial emissions. 

The US has made a lot of progress since the early 80's in VOC emissions by regulation.  I have seen that in EPA permits as we have been setting up plants across the country over the last 30 years.

What I find discouraging is comparing our permit requirements (which are abided to, no fines that I am aware of) for US plants versus those I see in Mexico, Brazil, China, and India.  It is significant in terms of measurable allowable units of measure.

Those particular are a major growing and emerging markets in the global economy, and unless the same regulations are adhered to by them then our contributions are being tremendously offset.

We are handcuffing ourselves in the US as the investments required to meet the regulations cost in the millions of dollars to install and operate.  It puts us at a competitive disadvantage, but yet is the right ecological thing to do.

I would rather see the focus of the problem shifted to getting global cooperation.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 09, 2012, 12:45:20 PM
I would rather see the focus of the problem shifted to getting global cooperation.
Not going to happen until everyone agrees it's a problem.

But hey, I'm glad that the "tropical storm" that has settled in over Michigan will be here for a few days. Hopefully we will get some much needed rain, not that it will help out the farmers that much. But will hopefully help to un-stagnate the rivers and lakes in our region.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on August 09, 2012, 04:21:55 PM
Yea...much needed rain, and it was good to open the house.  I kind of enjoy putting the cats outside in a hard rain too, they look so funny soaked and clawing at the patio door trying to get back in.

I don't see a global agreement anywhere in our future, so I guess we keep putting ourselves deeper into uncompetitiveness in the global economy and continue to watch manufacturing jobs leave our borders.  Sarcasm of course, but our efforts alone to improve the environment will not get the goal reached.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on August 09, 2012, 06:07:48 PM
Hopefully we will get some much needed rain, not that it will help out the farmers that much.

Actually, FB, this rain is a HUGE help to soybeans.  The benefit to corn, at this late date, is limited, but soybeans will definitely appreciate this moisture.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 09, 2012, 06:10:42 PM
Actually, FB, this rain is a HUGE help to soybeans.  The benefit to corn, at this late date, is limited, but soybeans will definitely appreciate this moisture.
well let's hope we get a slow moderate rain continuously until Saturday.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 10, 2012, 07:49:31 AM
Yea...much needed rain, and it was good to open the house.  I kind of enjoy putting the cats outside in a hard rain too, they look so funny soaked and clawing at the patio door trying to get back in.

I don't see a global agreement anywhere in our future, so I guess we keep putting ourselves deeper into uncompetitiveness in the global economy and continue to watch manufacturing jobs leave our borders.  Sarcasm of course, but our efforts alone to improve the environment will not get the goal reached.

You won't see a global agreement until the movement has extracted all it thinks it can from the US and it's gullible crowd.  It is quite simple really, the US is the biggest target because it has the most money and our style of governance makes us susceptible to rackets like "climate change".  Put together a small group of like minded folks, do some "scientific research", get a "peer" to call it "FACT" base it against a set of data that will work to "PROVE" your "FACTS" and viola... SCIENCE.

Put enough "SCIENTISTS" into positions of higher learning, and have them convince a bunch of gullible mushies that this thing is real because "SCIENTISTS" have "PROVEN IT" and get them to do their own independant resaerch to convince themselves.  Of course the independant research is all based on the underlying premise created by the baseline data created by the peer reviewed scientists who want this whole thing to be real in the first place, and if your independant study does not agree with thier established "SCIENTIFIC FACTS" then your data is wrong and you are out of the club... sorry chum you just are not a peer.  The climate change movement has been successful in the US because: a) they only surround themselves with folks who agree with them, b) they have found enough government representatives to do their bidding, c) they control court of opinion in institutions of higher learning, d) the media is on their side, e) they ELIMINATE those who do not adhere to their agenda.  I seem to remember a group of folks in Europe who followed a similar pattern in the 30's and 40's.  This movement is however much more sinister and much less blatant... the fruit of this movement only comes after the world economy is ground to a halt, prices have skyrocketed, and the poor, weak, and elderly will have no way to survive since their government who they always trusted to protect them will have ultimately brought about their demise... there will be no more social programs because all the taxes will be going to fund the people saving the earth and studying how to stop this runaway train they convinced us we set in motion.

Europe is flat broke so no need to extort them.
China is a communist country thatwill just keep its money thank you, and belch out all of the CO2 that they damn well please because there is no money for the climate change crowd to make there.
Mexico is too poor even though they chug out a ton of CO2, but drug cartels are not easily seperated from their cash.
The rest of the world: They have their own bigger problems to deal with like feeding starving people and pulling as much oil out of the ground as humanly possible, while shooting at each other.

So our options to avoid getting extorted to heck on this whole thing... go broke, go communist, deed ourselves to the cartels, famine, dig baby dig, or start a war with Canada.  OR we can tell the climate change crowd to come up with real solutions to factual problems based on real data and until then... pound sand.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 10, 2012, 08:47:11 AM


Hmm I drive a Scion IQ.  I can fit myself, and two other people inside with plenty of room for camping gear.  The way I see it, if you're going to spend that kind of cash to have that family you should make sure you can afford a vehicle that is both enviromentally friendly and can get you to where you need.  I do know that most Prius are cheaper than SUV's and they get incredible gas mileage.




We have two American made sedans, both of which get around 25mpg, which is probably about the same as your windup toy gets with 3 adults and all your camping gear in it... if you get up the hill at all.

But really thank you for your speech about how I cannot afford my family, it really was another PRICELESS GEM.

If you are so honestly concerned about mother earth why do you even own a vehicle?

But no really.. congrats... you drive a Scion.  YAY thanks for saving the earth by buying a car from a country whos CO2 emissions are increasing per capita every year while ours are stable if not falling.  You must have done a ton of independant research before making that decision.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 10, 2012, 08:50:50 AM
Reality has smacked me in the face.  I have looked at the FACTS that were presented earlier, and through independent study, and it's very clear that humans are the cause for climate change.  There's a varitety of reasons for that climate change including the use of fossil fuels and deforestation.

Again, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.  We need much stricter EPA penalities because it's easier for companies to pay off fines then it is to abide by those regulations.  Let's hit them where it hurts.

Hmm I drive a Scion IQ.  I can fit myself, and two other people inside with plenty of room for camping gear.  The way I see it, if you're going to spend that kind of cash to have that family you should make sure you can afford a vehicle that is both enviromentally friendly and can get you to where you need.  I do know that most Prius are cheaper than SUV's and they get incredible gas mileage.

Want more proof of global warming, here you go.  You can deny the facts all you want because it's convienent for you, but in the long run your stubborness is going to wipe your decendents off the planet. 

[url]http://change.nature.org/your-climate-stories/?src=CPC.AWG.CE2.AG83.CC58.CL2.MT4.KW1250&gclid=CJrNlbqz2rECFYlQOgodh0wAJg[/url] ([url]http://change.nature.org/your-climate-stories/?src=CPC.AWG.CE2.AG83.CC58.CL2.MT4.KW1250&gclid=CJrNlbqz2rECFYlQOgodh0wAJg[/url])

[url]http://co2now.org/[/url] ([url]http://co2now.org/[/url])

[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091008152242.htm[/url])

[url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm[/url])



You are long on speeches and theory... short on answers to follow up questions based on your speeches and theories.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 10, 2012, 09:11:01 AM
We have two American made sedans, both of which get around 25mpg, which is probably about the same as your windup toy gets with 3 adults and all your camping gear in it... if you get up the hill at all.

Wind up toy?  LOL that's just funny.  Drive one and you'll see they got quite a bit of pep.  As for my gas mileage, that's since I bought the car a few months ago, that's not a snap shot.

Quote
But really thank you for your speech about how I cannot afford my family, it really was another PRICELESS GEM.

I'm not saying you can't afford to support your family.  I'm saying I would have thought about things differently if I had one. 

Quote
If you are so honestly concerned about mother earth why do you even own a vehicle?

Unfortunately I need one to get to work to support myself.  If this area had anything resembling a public transportation system like DC, Atlanta, Chicago, or any other large city in the country, I would be using that in a heartbeat.  I love Atlanta for their public transportation system.

Quote
But no really.. congrats... you drive a Scion.  YAY thanks for saving the earth by buying a car from a country whos CO2 emissions are increasing per capita every year while ours are stable if not falling.  You must have done a ton of independant research before making that decision.

I did the independant research on the gas mileage.  I also know that Japan has signed the Kyoto treaty.  Now I did read your little post about how the Kyoto treaty has loop holes.  We just need to close those loop holes and everything will be just fine.  As for the increasing CO2 emmisions, I had no clue.  I do Know Japan is doing everything in it's power to use nuclear power and find ways for clean energy because it's cheaper than importing fossil fuels.  The US should step up to the plate and do this.  I have a few other ideas that would work as well.  And for the record, the Scion IQ has less negative impact on the environment to build and maintain than a Ford Fiesta.

Now how am I short on answers?  I have answered every point you have tried and failed to make.  You fail to look at all the independant research that is coming out DAILY to suppor that humans are affecting the environment.  You have failed to look through history to see how humans have altered their environment to the point they destroyed the natural ecosystem, and only after said humans had left, due to the inability to survive thanks to the damage they did to the ecosytem, did the area return to it's natural state.

You can look at a ton of historical data to see that humans affect the environment and cause the climates of those areas to change.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: marilyn.monroe on August 10, 2012, 09:18:28 AM
http://www.severstalna.com/eng/index.phtml (http://www.severstalna.com/eng/index.phtml)

Loving, touching, squeezing another.

SEVERSTALNA
Poised to pollute over 100 fold CO2.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 10, 2012, 01:02:10 PM
All the personal bickering does nothing for the subject... 8*   JBS, you try too hard to one up people, all the while really missing the point... :-\





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

Stubborn and close minded people will never learn til they find themselves in trouble, so stumble on into the darkness...
 I find it quite pointless to even try to continue...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 11, 2012, 07:05:53 AM
I don't miss the point Baggins.  I disagree with the methodology that has produced the "scientific proof" and am pretty damn tired of the knee jerk reactions of those that think I am insistant on boiling the oceans because I have valid questions.

As for the one upping... it is the climate change folks who call us simpletons naive or uneducated.  I am pretty confident my education level and intelligence stacks up here just fine, and if I want to fire off some steam at someone who is just outright offended that I think on my own and have legitimate points or questions then I damn well will.

There are a whole bunch of folks who, like me, don't buy this BS and there is solid evidence to point to a completely alternate theory or theories, but we are poopooed because we hate polar bears!  And that is almost usually the level of rebuttal I get... "You hate polar bears... I win"!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 17, 2012, 10:56:05 AM
I don't miss the point Baggins.  I disagree with the methodology that has produced the "scientific proof" and am pretty damn tired of the knee jerk reactions of those that think I am insistant on boiling the oceans because I have valid questions.

As for the one upping... it is the climate change folks who call us simpletons naive or uneducated.  I am pretty confident my education level and intelligence stacks up here just fine, and if I want to fire off some steam at someone who is just outright offended that I think on my own and have legitimate points or questions then I damn well will.

There are a whole bunch of folks who, like me, don't buy this BS and there is solid evidence to point to a completely alternate theory or theories, but we are poopooed because we hate polar bears!  And that is almost usually the level of rebuttal I get... "You hate polar bears... I win"!


My concern doesn't come from a knee jerk reaction, or just because I read something new, it comes from years of observation of how much has changed in so short of a time and from countless hours of research of the subject, both for and against...I have come to find that those most apposed to the concept that man is harming the planet are those making the biggest profit from it, and for those not directly making that profit, they just follow along because it's much easier than taking personal interest or taking part in finding a solution(it's just too inconvenient!).  Most naysayers just don't care simply because they think this doesn't concern them for the most part because they wont be here when the **** hits the fan in earnest...But that day will come if people don't wise up.

I don't think I said anything about your intelligence, you seem sharp enough to me, and if I did I'm sorry for that...I get overly frustrated at times and can be a prick.  I do have a temper, but my frustration is born out of the lack of action we've taken, though I know somethings have been done, as far as the big picture, we are failing and falling behind at an ever increasing rate.  So when a person says climate change is nothing but a liberal lie to steal money from you(which is absurd to me, because there is no amount of money worth the well being of this ball we live on, there is only ONE Earth!), it burns me up and I'll say things I might regret or don't really mean.   Your questions are indeed valid, for there are no stupid questions...Searching for the truth can never be wrong.

I have never suggested we stop driving cars, or shut down the power grid...That argument is just pure nonsense.  I would like to see us strive for more wind, solar and water based energies(sources that truly are clean and free to use if we just take the effort!) Sometimes this is scoffed at for no better reason than fear of changing the status quo...Sure start up costs may be high, but in the long term, they would be the most cost efficient.  That point just can not be argued against, for it is a logical fact.

I'm not that bad of a person, you can just ask those who know me and care a lot about what we've done and still keep doing, maybe I get too passionate about the subject, but it's one point of view I will not bend on...For I believe without a doubt that we mankind have damaged this planet for no other reason than to make a profit and that my friend is a sad short sighted vision and a damning aspect of humans.




BTW, I seriously doubt you hate polar bears... ;D

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 17, 2012, 07:28:31 PM
You are right, I like 'em... they're cute.

I don't think you took a shot at my intelligence either, that comment was reserved for the crowd who insists my head is in the sand because I don't fully buy into unproven science.

Your third paragraph could not be more spot on, the less fossil fuel we can consume today the better.  I have for years been suggesting the use and further development of alternatives.  But I demand it be done in a responsible manner and I think the private sector has a much better chance at achieving what neds to be done in the most thourough and inexpensive manner.

I am trying to decide approx $300,000 is a good price tag to supply energy to 336 houses for 20 years, that was the going rate in 2008 for the wind turbine project in TX.  628 turbines for $2.6B that service 230,000 homes.

$300K / 20 years = $15K a year just for construction / 336 houses = $44.60 per house per year for 20 years, not including maint or the actual energy used.  This seems like a very reasonable price to me, and the main reason I have been a huge proponant of wind energy for our region but BIG COAL and BIG OIL have done a great job of shutting this down here by enlisting small grassroots organizations to spread unproved falsehoods (much like alot of the climate change science and dooms day phrophecy) and convince just enough voters in small rural areas (because that is the area geographically) to craft ordinances that allow the turbines but make it impossible to build them within the scope of the ordinnce.

I really fail to understand the fierce hatred for nuclear, solar is still not real cost effective or proven to be reliable, and fish trump hydro in the environmental world.

So that leaves us with fossil fuels, which is the perfect underlying environment to push the "science" of climate change.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on August 17, 2012, 07:40:57 PM
You are right, I like 'em... they're cute.

I don't think you took a shot at my intelligence either, that comment was reserved for the crowd who insists my head is in the sand because I don't fully buy into unproven science.

Your third paragraph could not be more spot on, the less fossil fuel we can consume today the better.  I have for years been suggesting the use and further development of alternatives.  But I demand it be done in a responsible manner and I think the private sector has a much better chance at achieving what neds to be done in the most thourough and inexpensive manner.

I am trying to decide approx $300,000 is a good price tag to supply energy to 336 houses for 20 years, that was the going rate in 2008 for the wind turbine project in TX.  628 turbines for $2.6B that service 230,000 homes.

$300K / 20 years = $15K a year just for construction / 336 houses = $44.60 per house per year for 20 years, not including maint or the actual energy used.  This seems like a very reasonable price to me, and the main reason I have been a huge proponant of wind energy for our region but BIG COAL and BIG OIL have done a great job of shutting this down here by enlisting small grassroots organizations to spread unproved falsehoods (much like alot of the climate change science and dooms day phrophecy) and convince just enough voters in small rural areas (because that is the area geographically) to craft ordinances that allow the turbines but make it impossible to build them within the scope of the ordinnce.

I really fail to understand the fierce hatred for nuclear, solar is still not real cost effective or proven to be reliable, and fish trump hydro in the environmental world.

So that leaves us with fossil fuels, which is the perfect underlying environment to push the "science" of climate change.
Well said. So here we remain, between the devil and the deep blue sea. (Don't put any wind turbines in the deep blue sea; the rich folk may be able to see them from their expensive decks!) Also, them turbines kills birds, doncha know. Them birds never dies unless them dadgum turbines is built. Birds and fishies before  people, that's my motto.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 20, 2012, 10:10:56 AM
You are right, I like 'em... they're cute.

I don't think you took a shot at my intelligence either, that comment was reserved for the crowd who insists my head is in the sand because I don't fully buy into unproven science.

Your third paragraph could not be more spot on, the less fossil fuel we can consume today the better.  I have for years been suggesting the use and further development of alternatives.  But I demand it be done in a responsible manner and I think the private sector has a much better chance at achieving what neds to be done in the most thourough and inexpensive manner.

I am trying to decide approx $300,000 is a good price tag to supply energy to 336 houses for 20 years, that was the going rate in 2008 for the wind turbine project in TX.  628 turbines for $2.6B that service 230,000 homes.

$300K / 20 years = $15K a year just for construction / 336 houses = $44.60 per house per year for 20 years, not including maint or the actual energy used.  This seems like a very reasonable price to me, and the main reason I have been a huge proponant of wind energy for our region but BIG COAL and BIG OIL have done a great job of shutting this down here by enlisting small grassroots organizations to spread unproved falsehoods (much like alot of the climate change science and dooms day phrophecy) and convince just enough voters in small rural areas (because that is the area geographically) to craft ordinances that allow the turbines but make it impossible to build them within the scope of the ordinnce.

I really fail to understand the fierce hatred for nuclear, solar is still not real cost effective or proven to be reliable, and fish trump hydro in the environmental world.

So that leaves us with fossil fuels, which is the perfect underlying environment to push the "science" of climate change.


Well, the main reason Nuclear is a problem and not a solution is that we have no way to deal with the waste and toxic byproducts other than storing them out of sight...

How is climate science unproven...???   People say that because the opposition has been backing the claim with anti-liberal rhetoric(it'll cost too much and the commies and socialists want to take your cars away and make you live in caves) and more money than it would take to enact the changes we need(big oil, gas and coal companies backed the block of windmills in south central Michigan!).  ...The science taken with the actual observations over the past few decades should be enough to convince the level headed.  That's the way I see it anyways...No hidden agendas in the science, just plan simple truths.

Mans folly is greed, common sense and good judgment goes out the window when there is a buck to be made, history has shown this time and time again... :-\   It always takes some great catastrophe before we see the truth of our actions and change our ways...I don't what it to come to that!  Because if we wait and see what happens, it will be too late, I honestly believe that...!

As for fish and birds, we already kill them off at an ever increasing rate with our current actions(oil spills and air pollution)...I've posted many things about mass die offs in the past...In my thinking conservation of wildlife and protecting the environment should go hand in hand, and not be butting heads over who cares more about this or that.   More than likely those sentiments come from the same folks that fear the windmills and solar farms, just to find more people to oppose it...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 23, 2012, 11:46:04 AM
I guess even the Chinese have seen the effects of climate change and are preparing to spend more than a 1/3 of a TRILLION dollars to try and reduce their coal consumption by 300 million tons over the next 3 years.

Quote
China's economic growth over the past three decades has turned it into a major importer of oil, gas and coal, and high international fossil fuel prices have contributed to huge losses at some of China's large state-owned power companies.

The central government's drive to reduce China's insatiable appetite for fossil fuels is aimed at improving the country's future energy security, and is a central plank of its policy to slow down growth in greenhouse gas emissions.

China, the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, plans to cut its CO2 emissions per unit of GDP by 40-45 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-to-spend-372-billion-on-cutting-energy-use-and-pollution (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-to-spend-372-billion-on-cutting-energy-use-and-pollution)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 23, 2012, 01:11:13 PM
I guess even the Chinese have seen the effects of climate change and are preparing to spend more than a 1/3 of a TRILLION dollars to try and reduce their coal consumption by 300 million tons over the next 3 years.
 

[url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-to-spend-372-billion-on-cutting-energy-use-and-pollution[/url] ([url]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=china-to-spend-372-billion-on-cutting-energy-use-and-pollution[/url])



Now if we can get India to follow suit, things might be on a better path...Coal is dirty, no matter what the industry says about "clean" coal burning...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 23, 2012, 03:56:24 PM
I would keep an eye on China.  Very rarely has China commited to something they were unsure was going to pan out.  They may have figured out the solution, meaning they found a way to produce enough electricity from alternatives AND they know how to do it in a cost effective manner.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on August 23, 2012, 09:24:28 PM

Now if we can get India to follow suit, things might be on a better path...Coal is dirty, no matter what the industry says about "clean" coal burning...
All of India smells odd.  At first I thought it was just because we were in port, but all through the country it just has an unbelievable odor.  There was nothing like that smell on all 7 continents. (Although the penguin poop smelled atrocious in Antarctica!)
My son said the same thing about Afghanistan.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 24, 2012, 01:39:00 AM
OSLO — The area of ice in the Arctic Ocean has thawed to a record low, surpassing the previous 2007 minimum in a sign of climate change transforming the region, according to some scientific estimates.

"We reached the minimum ice area today (Thursday). It has never been measured less than right now," Ola Johannessen, founding director of the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center in Norway, told Reuters.

"It is just below the 2007 minimum."

The U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), widely viewed as the main authority on sea ice, has projected that the 2007 minimum extent is set to be breached next week . The summer thaw usually continues well into September.

Other scientists monitoring the ice interpret satellite data in slightly differing ways.

An ice chart compiled by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) showed the ice extent had also just shrunk a fraction past the 2007 minimum. The DMI said it would defer to the NSIDC to judge when a record had been set.

Ice has been shrinking steadily in recent decades in the Arctic, threatening the livelihoods of indigenous peoples and wildlife. It is also helping to open an area rich in oil and gas and bringing the promise of new, shorter shipping routes.

"This is due to climate change," Nicolai Kliem, head of the ice service at DMI, said of the long-term decline in summer ice. Scientists project that summer sea ice could vanish completely in coming decades.

Runaway thaw
The retreat of the ice may be self-reinforcing. Ice reflects sunlight back into space and as it shrinks it exposes dark water that absorbs more heat, accelerating thawing.


Johannessen stressed his measurement was of the "area" of ice, now less than 4.0 million square kilometers (1.5 million square miles), omitting the open water between ice floes.

The NSIDC prefers a bigger "extent", including such gaps, on the grounds that pools of meltwater that form on sea ice are hard to distinguish from open ocean.

Kliem said the ice was becoming more prone to melt because there was less of the hard, resilient ice that endures more than one year. The ice usually reaches a minimum in September before forming again as winter approaches and reaching a maximum in March.

"We had quite a big ice cover in March 2012, above average. But because there is little long-term ice it melts more quickly in summer," he said.

In a sign of widening interest in the polar region as a short-cut shipping route between the Pacific and the Atlantic, Beijing sent an icebreaker across the Arctic this summer to Iceland - the first Chinese vessel to cross the Arctic Ocean.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48766244/ns/us_news-environment/#.UDcSVaCi2So (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48766244/ns/us_news-environment/#.UDcSVaCi2So)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 24, 2012, 08:45:45 AM
http://floppingaces.net/2012/08/22/the-6-quadrillion-dollar-climate-change-scam/ (http://floppingaces.net/2012/08/22/the-6-quadrillion-dollar-climate-change-scam/)

This doctrine, as a set of beliefs, is an ideology, if not a religion. It lives independently on the science of climatology. Its disputes are not about temperature, but are part of the “conflict of ideologies”. Temperature is used and misused in these disputes. The politicians, the media and the public – misled by the very aggressive propaganda produced by the adherents of the global warming doctrine – do not see this. It is our task to help them to distinguish between what is science and what is ideology.

Believers in the global warming doctrine have not yet presented its authoritative text, its manifesto. One of the reasons is that no one wants to be explicitly connected with it. Another is that to put such a text together would be difficult because this doctrine is not a monolithic concept which can be easily summarized. Its subject matter does not belong to any single science. It presents itself as a flexible, rather inconsistent, loosely connected cascade of arguments, which is why it has quite successfully escaped the scrutiny of science. It comfortably dwells in the easy and self protecting world of false interdisciplinarity which is really a nondisciplinarity, it is an absence of discipline.

...And using Australia’s new carbon dioxide tax as a case study Christopher Monckton demonstrated that it would cost the world “$6 quadrillion to prevent the 6 degrees Fahrenheit of predicted “global warming” that will not happen anyway.”


...Obama has an ambitious second-term agenda, which, at least in broad ways, his campaign is beginning to highlight. The President has said that the most important policy he could address in his second term is climate change, one of the few issues that he thinks could fundamentally improve the world decades from now.

...Not our economy that is in shambles but climate change!

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 24, 2012, 09:15:02 AM
Actually by addressing climate change Obama could help improve the economy.  I seem to remember Carter, the most under rated president of all time, having solar panels on the White House lawn.  If we had really pushed for clean energy in the late 70's then there's a good chance we would be leading the world in clean energy production AND manufacture of clean energy products.  Then again why would we do that when all the conservatives are OWNED by big oil and coal?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 24, 2012, 09:35:09 AM
How many examples do you want of Oloser giving money to his cronies alternative energy companies, only to have them shut their doors or layoff American workers and ship the jobs overseas?.  Here's two...Solyndra, Lightsquare

Yep solar panels on the White House.  Another fiasco that Odingbat tried to revive.

As for demeaning big oil, they too are looking into alternative energies. 

Push for clean energy all you want. When it's a viable alternative, it will be embraced.


Actually by addressing climate change Obama could help improve the economy.  I seem to remember Carter, the most under rated president of all time, having solar panels on the White House lawn.  If we had really pushed for clean energy in the late 70's then there's a good chance we would be leading the world in clean energy production AND manufacture of clean energy products.  Then again why would we do that when all the conservatives are OWNED by big oil and coal?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 24, 2012, 09:47:45 AM
How many examples do you want of Oloser giving money to his cronies alternative energy companies, only to have them shut their doors or layoff American workers and ship the jobs overseas?.  Here's two...Solyndra, Lightsquare

Yep solar panels on the White House.  Another fiasco that Odingbat tried to revive.

As for demeaning big oil, they too are looking into alternative energies. 

Push for clean energy all you want. When it's a viable alternative, it will be embraced.

It already is a viable alternative.  People just don't like to embrace change.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 24, 2012, 09:56:01 AM
Actually by addressing climate change Obama could help improve the economy.  I seem to remember Carter, the most under rated president of all time, having solar panels on the White House lawn. If we had really pushed for clean energy in the late 70's then there's a good chance we would be leading the world in clean energy production AND manufacture of clean energy products. Then again why would we do that when all the conservatives are OWNED by big oil and coal?


Yeah, those same solar panels were torn down by Reagan as soon as he took office, just because he thought of them as a hippie liberal notion to use alternatives of fossil fuels...That's draconian thinking and serves no one but the ones in power, mainly oil companies!  And, they do control Washington!

The highlighted portion of your post is what I've been saying all this time...!  We dropped the ball because oil barons need more of OUR money!


Quote
Believers in the global warming doctrine have not yet presented its authoritative text, its manifesto. One of the reasons is that no one wants to be explicitly connected with it. Another is that to put such a text together would be difficult because this doctrine is not a monolithic concept which can be easily summarized.

Horseapples!  I've said what needs to be done(on many occasions), you're just not interested in listening because you're locked in the thought of hidden agendas of those evil hippie liberals...And it really comes down to a very simple concept, more wind, solar and hyrdo power plants, while decreasing the coal burners and a strong push for electric vehicles, which will take time as well to ween us off of oil. That isn't too hard to understand now is it?  It's something that will take time and not happen over night...But first the public needs to understand the truth of the matter before it's going to get involved in large scale change, most of which(you included) are fearful of any change!


How many examples do you want of Oloser giving money to his cronies alternative energy companies, only to have them shut their doors or layoff American workers and ship the jobs overseas?.  Here's two...Solyndra, Lightsquare

Yep solar panels on the White House.  Another fiasco that Odingbat tried to revive.

As for demeaning big oil, they too are looking into alternative energies. 

Push for clean energy all you want. When it's a viable alternative, it will be embraced.




It's been viable for years, all the while being hindered by the powers that be(oil, coal and gas companies, which own most of the politicians!)...And are you forgetting how much money is thrown at the oil companies every year for decades on end...?  Your argument about money wasted on failed green projects pales in comparison...Get a clue!

Big oil companies, the coal and gas industries have absolutely no intention of letting a competitor wedge it's way into there profits and have no real intention of pursuing for alternatives, that's a frigging joke if ever I've heard one...More lies to make you like them! Capitalist are the most evil breed of human and will do ANYTHING to get what they want and keep it...!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 24, 2012, 10:10:11 AM
Capitalist are the most evil breed of human and will do ANYTHING to get what they want and keep it...!

This quote overshadows everything else in your post.  Sick, disgusting and wrong is what that is.  Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jong and the dog-eater in chief would be proud though.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 24, 2012, 10:16:37 AM
This quote overshadows everything else in your post.  Sick, disgusting and wrong is what that is.  Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Jong and the dog-eater in chief would be proud though.


You comparing Obama to any of those is ridiculous and far more sick, disgusting and wrong...!

What I said is the truth of our society, sorry if it hurts your feelings...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 24, 2012, 01:32:26 PM

You comparing Obama to any of those is ridiculous and far more sick, disgusting and wrong...!

What I said is the truth of our society, sorry if it hurts your feelings...


Linking Ofuhrer with the above.....      http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2012/08/must-see_new_fi.php (http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2012/08/must-see_new_fi.php)

.....(this is not to say that it doesn't have a tad bit of conjecture and 'far-fetchiness'). At the very least you'll get a short lesson in some of the history of the communist party in the U.S. and the role of Frank Marshal Davis in the development of Barack Obama's ideology, agenda, and policies.

Regarding Capitalism.....
http://nicedoggie.net/?p=5878 (http://nicedoggie.net/?p=5878)

Liberal idiot notion: Capitalism is evil and racist and therefore conservatives, being capitalist, are evil and racist.

Yes, we are capitalists. Very much so. What liberals don’t seem to be able to get through the concrete walls of massive ignorance that they refer to as “their skulls”, is what capitalism is all about. They seem to think it involves stealing from the poor and raping little brown people. It does that too, but only on Tuesdays. When we’re bored.

Also, and we know that you like to bring that up in your darling ignorance of the real world, we’re not in the slightest interested in keeping the rest of the world under our imperialist, oppressive thumb, stuck in the stone age etc. etc. etc., the way Noam Chimpshit has always taught you. Because that means that they won’t be able to buy our gadgets either.

Oh sure, having everybody else in the world live in unspeakable squalor would give us bragging rights at our cocktail parties and something to laugh at, but that still won’t pay the Porsches in our garages, will it?

So, as you can see, arbitrarily keeping people poor and oppressed is a really, really stupid thing for a self-respecting capitalist to do, which is why we avoid it like the plague.

more at the links.

Now to stay on topic...Hot out today.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 24, 2012, 02:35:40 PM

You comparing Obama to any of those is ridiculous and far more sick, disgusting and wrong...!

What I said is the truth of our society, sorry if it hurts your feelings...

Greed is what made this country great, and will continue to do so as long as it can be acted upon by all.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 24, 2012, 02:48:35 PM
Greed is what made this country great, and will continue to do so as long as it can be acted upon by all.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

No, compassion and helping others made this country great.  Greed has turned it into a crap hole.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 24, 2012, 03:16:19 PM
compassion and helping others made this country great.
Greed is what made this country great
A better comparison between good and evil has yet to be found.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 24, 2012, 03:23:40 PM
No, compassion and helping others made this country great.  Greed has turned it into a crap hole.

lol, not even close.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 24, 2012, 03:26:29 PM
A better comparison between good and evil has yet to be found.

Really?  and what exactly did you do today that was not motivated by greed?

Did you go to work?
Did you try to improve yourself with education?
Did you try to come up with a better way of doing something?
Did you go to the gym?
Did you start a healthier lifestyle by beginning to meditate or eat healthy?

Yes, all motivated by greed.  And all evil by your definition.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 24, 2012, 03:43:32 PM
I went to work today because I have to survive.  I go to the gym because I enjoy exercise.   I went to college because I enjoy learning.   I volunteer because I think music should be shared.

NOTHING I do is motivated by greed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on August 24, 2012, 05:47:05 PM
I went to work today because I have to survive.  I go to the gym because I enjoy exercise.   I went to college because I enjoy learning.   

I go to Larry Flynt's Place because I enjoy.......opps, never mind.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on August 24, 2012, 06:07:03 PM
There is a big difference between prosperity and greed. You can obtain prosperity without greed. You can also be prosperous and still be compassionate. Being greedy and being compassionate do not mix.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Forsythia on August 24, 2012, 07:01:45 PM
Excellent point Lilly.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 24, 2012, 08:23:37 PM
Really?  and what exactly did you do today that was not motivated by greed?

Did you go to work?
Did you try to improve yourself with education?
Did you try to come up with a better way of doing something?
Did you go to the gym?
Did you start a healthier lifestyle by beginning to meditate or eat healthy?

Yes, all motivated by greed.  And all evil by your definition.
There is a big difference between prosperity and greed. You can obtain prosperity without greed. You can also be prosperous and still be compassionate. Being greedy and being compassionate do not mix.
I am guessing everyone else is using a different interpretation of the word "Greed" than you are Flanders.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: LetsGoWings on August 24, 2012, 08:47:56 PM
I guess it all comes down to how an individual wants to define greed.

If we use the Merriam and Webster definition: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed.

Then, I would say in certain aspect I am greedy. I want to know more, I want to be the best at my job, I want more money. However, in those same aspects I am not willing to obtain them by throwing coworkers, or anyone else, under the metaphorical bus. I want to do those by personal greed to better myself.

I have to disagree I think greed and compassionate can mix, just not usually in the same issue. Bill Gates had a tremendous amount of greed with Microsoft. However, through his work with his Gates foundation he is extremely compassionate.

 Most successful entrepreneurs, some who have helped make this county great, have been greedy in their own way. However, a lot of them have also been extremely compassionate in their life and with their wealth after death.

Of course, this could all changed based on how you want to interpret the actual definition of greed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on August 24, 2012, 09:00:53 PM
Too bad that greedy rich Carnegie guy didn't leave anything of worth behind. Oh, oh; that greedy rich Ford guy , too.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on August 24, 2012, 09:03:49 PM
I got an education because I WANTED to have a job where I was financially comfortable.
I go to the gym because I WANT to live a healthier lifestyle.
I saw someone start a business because they saw an opportunity to do something better and WANTED freedom of being their own boss.
I saw a car company invent the latest safety features to create a selling point because they WANTED to sell more cars.
I saw that car and bought it because I WANTED my family to be safe while driving.

All examples of wants driving how we live each day.  All examples of why the US has always and continues to dominate in the arena of innovation and technology.  Sure, Greed can be taken to the extreme to where it harms others.  BUT the government can be just as guilty abusing greed as a crooked CEO.

But to call Greed evil, is simply misguided.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on August 24, 2012, 10:19:35 PM

But to call Greed evil, is simply misguided.






1 Timothy 6:10 ESV / 215 helpful votes

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils. It is through this craving that some have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many pangs.

Proverbs 28:25 ESV / 114 helpful votes

A greedy man stirs up strife, but the one who trusts in the Lord will be enriched.

Hebrews 13:5 ESV / 94 helpful votes

Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.”




Luke 12:15 ESV / 87 helpful votes

And he said to them, “Take care, and be on your guard against all covetousness, for one's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions.”


1 Timothy 6:9 ESV / 85 helpful votes

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.


1 John 2:16 ESV / 62 helpful votes

For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.


Proverbs 11:24 ESV / 49 helpful votes

One gives freely, yet grows all the richer; another withholds what he should give, and only suffers want.


Matthew 6:24 ESV / 48 helpful votes

“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.


James 4:3 ESV / 37 helpful votes

You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.


Psalm 10:3 ESV / 29 helpful votes

For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul, and the one greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord.


Proverbs 15:27 ESV / 26 helpful votes

Whoever is greedy for unjust gain troubles his own household, but he who hates bribes will live.


Proverbs 20:21 ESV / 25 helpful votes

An inheritance gained hastily in the beginning will not be blessed in the end.


John 12:6 ESV / 23 helpful votes

He said this, not because he cared about the poor, but because he was a thief, and having charge of the moneybag he used to help himself to what was put into it.


Matthew 13:44 ESV / 23 helpful votes

“The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.


Jeremiah 6:13 ESV / 23 helpful votes

“For from the least to the greatest of them, everyone is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest, everyone deals falsely.


Matthew 6:33 ESV / 21 helpful votes

But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.


2 Peter 2:14 ESV / 19 helpful votes

They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!


Matthew 19:21 ESV / 18 helpful votes

Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.”


Mark 7:20-23 ESV / 15 helpful votes

And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”


Proverbs 1:12-13 ESV / 15 helpful votes

Like Sheol let us swallow them alive, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; we shall find all precious goods, we shall fill our houses with plunder;


Colossians 3:5 ESV / 14 helpful votes

Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.


Ephesians 5:5 ESV / 14 helpful votes

For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.


Ephesians 5:3-5 ESV / 14 helpful votes

But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints. Let there be no filthiness nor foolish talk nor crude joking, which are out of place, but instead let there be thanksgiving. For you may be sure of this, that everyone who is sexually immoral or impure, or who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.


Proverbs 1:1-33 ESV / 14 helpful votes

The proverbs of Solomon, son of David, king of Israel: To know wisdom and instruction, to understand words of insight, to receive instruction in wise dealing, in righteousness, justice, and equity; to give prudence to the simple, knowledge and discretion to the youth— Let the wise hear and increase in learning, and the one who understands obtain guidance, ...


Proverbs 11:6 ESV / 13 helpful votes

The righteousness of the upright delivers them, but the treacherous are taken captive by their lust.


1 Corinthians 3:11 ESV / 12 helpful votes

For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.


Malachi 3:10 ESV / 12 helpful votes

Bring the full tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. And thereby put me to the test, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open the windows of heaven for you and pour down for you a blessing until there is no more need.


Galatians 5:19-21 ESV / 11 helpful votes

Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.


1 Thessalonians 2:5 ESV / 7 helpful votes

For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with a pretext for greed—God is witness.


Philippians 4:6 ESV / 4 helpful votes

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.


Exodus 20:11-18 ESV / 3 helpful votes

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy. “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. “You shall not murder. “You shall not commit adultery. “You shall not steal. ...
http://www.openbible.info/topics/greed (http://www.openbible.info/topics/greed)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SMASH on August 25, 2012, 12:06:03 AM
Actually by addressing climate change Obama could help improve the economy.  I seem to remember Carter, the most under rated president of all time, having solar panels on the White House lawn.  If we had really pushed for clean energy in the late 70's then there's a good chance we would be leading the world in clean energy production AND manufacture of clean energy products.  Then again why would we do that when all the conservatives are OWNED by big oil and coal?
Jimmy Carter?

Hmm, that's a good one.

Carter worked on developing nuke propulsion for US Navy submarines.

When Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (then a captain) started his program to create nuclear powered submarines, Carter wanted to join the program and was interviewed by Rickover. On 1 June 1952, Carter was promoted to Lieutenant. Selected by Rickover, Carter was detached on 16 October 1952 from K-1 for duty with the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Reactor Development in Schenectady, New York. From 3 November 1952 to 1 March 1953, he served on temporary duty with the Naval Reactors Branch, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Washington, DC to assist "in the design and development of nuclear propulsion plants for naval vessels."

From 1 March to 8 October, Carter was preparing to become the engineering officer for the nuclear power plant to be placed in USS Seawolf (SSN 575), one of the first submarines to operate on atomic power. He assisted in setting up training for the enlisted men who would serve on Seawolf. During this time his father became very sick and died in July 1953. After his father's death in 1953, Carter resigned from the Navy to return to Georgia to manage the family interests. Carter was honorably discharged on 9 October 1953 at Headquarters, Third Naval District in New York City. On 7 December 1961, he transferred to the retired reserve with the rank of Lieutenant at his own request.


How's that Department of Energy thing working out for us he started?

With the stated goal of getting us to be Energy Independant?

Yeah right!

Now Willard Romney is talking the same crap!

Independant of who CANADA?

The only thing I need to remember about Carter is the number 444!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SMASH on August 25, 2012, 12:08:30 AM

Yeah, those same solar panels were torn down by Reagan as soon as he took office, just because he thought of them as a hippie liberal notion to use alternatives of fossil fuels...That's draconian thinking and serves no one but the ones in power, mainly oil companies!  And, they do control Washington!

The highlighted portion of your post is what I've been saying all this time...!  We dropped the ball because oil barons need more of OUR money!


Horseapples!  I've said what needs to be done(on many occasions), you're just not interested in listening because you're locked in the thought of hidden agendas of those evil hippie liberals...And it really comes down to a very simple concept, more wind, solar and hyrdo power plants, while decreasing the coal burners and a strong push for electric vehicles, which will take time as well to ween us off of oil. That isn't too hard to understand now is it?  It's something that will take time and not happen over night...But first the public needs to understand the truth of the matter before it's going to get involved in large scale change, most of which(you included) are fearful of any change!



It's been viable for years, all the while being hindered by the powers that be(oil, coal and gas companies, which own most of the politicians!)...And are you forgetting how much money is thrown at the oil companies every year for decades on end...?  Your argument about money wasted on failed green projects pales in comparison...Get a clue!

Big oil companies, the coal and gas industries have absolutely no intention of letting a competitor wedge it's way into there profits and have no real intention of pursuing for alternatives, that's a frigging joke if ever I've heard one...More lies to make you like them! Capitalist are the most evil breed of human and will do ANYTHING to get what they want and keep it...!

Good for them they EARNED IT!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 26, 2012, 12:03:01 PM
I got an education because I WANTED to have a job where I was financially comfortable.
I go to the gym because I WANT to live a healthier lifestyle.
I saw someone start a business because they saw an opportunity to do something better and WANTED freedom of being their own boss.
I saw a car company invent the latest safety features to create a selling point because they WANTED to sell more cars.
I saw that car and bought it because I WANTED my family to be safe while driving.

All examples of wants driving how we live each day.  All examples of why the US has always and continues to dominate in the arena of innovation and technology.  Sure, Greed can be taken to the extreme to where it harms others.  BUT the government can be just as guilty abusing greed as a crooked CEO.

But to call Greed evil, is simply misguided.
Interesting skewed perception of greed.
I'm mildly amused by the far-fetched wild definitions you righties create.
And the ability of righties to take subjects off-topic is noteworthy as well.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 26, 2012, 12:55:04 PM
Not Just An Idiot About Rape: Akin On Climate Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuNTDoWKPRM&feature=plcp#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 26, 2012, 06:59:26 PM
Whatever happened to the term "Global Warming"?

A historically cool summer happened, so they changed the term to "Climate Change."

Now we had a hot summer so they say this is proof.  Problem is even as North America has been breaking heat records and are in a drought Europe is abnormally cool and have been getting large amounts of rain.

In the 1970's the environmentalists worried about the new ice age that was once again going to cover North America with glaciers.  A few years later a failed presidential candidate who got bad grades in science makes a movie that show glaciers melting and predicts they will all be gone in a matter of years.

Guess a "Climate Change" proponent would ignore that fact.

I do believe that Climate Change happens.  There is a ton of evidence that where we live used to be tropical - the fossil evidence shows that.  We also know that this planet experienced an ice age, and that glaciers did cover much of North America at one point.

What I am NOT sold on is mankind is the source of Climate Change.  There are many other factors larger then us that causes that.  The glowing fusion furnace in the sky we call the sun, and the solar flares that erupt on it.  Meteors that have hit the planets surface in the past are believed to have caused climate change.  Volcanoes erupting have been documented to change weather patterns and temperatures on the planet. 

Lets face it - Global Warming or Climate Change is in fact a manifesto of the left to achieve their political goals, and many are too STUPID to see that as a fact.  They actually think that if they buy carbon credits they can offset the pollution their Prius makes, or their plane ride to go on vacation.  They actually think the Kyoto accords or signing Cap and Trade would perhaps save the planet, even as China spews far more pollution into the planet then the US does. 

Should we reduce pollution?  Of course.  Should we explore new technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?  Of course.  Should "global warming" or "climate change" be a religion that it has become?  I think not.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 26, 2012, 07:17:45 PM
I enjoyed watching to coverage of TROPICAL STORM Issac the other night on ABC.

You would have thought it was the end days.  They had their "Extreme Weather" team covering the "Monster" Storm that was bearing down on the Haiti and surely about to kill and maim MILLIONS!  Then GASP it may be heading for Florida where it could disrupt our dear political process!

All the freaking HYPE!!! And for what?  To push an agenda.

And guess what, still TROPICAL STORM ISSAC as of right now.  The climate change crowd faces such a dilemma in these times, they NEED Issac to become a monster so they can hold it as proof that "climate change" is causing these EXTREME storms.  Except this storm and this Hurricane season has been nothing close to EXTREME.

Issac may well become a Hurricane.  It may well become a Major Hurricane (The latest satellite pictures show it is organizing and strengthening now that it is over the favorable Gulf of Mexico).  Guess what?  It is Hurricane season and this s#!t happens from time to time.

While most of us sit and pray that Issac has the least amount of impact on anyone, the radicals in the climate change crowd quietly sit in the background and chant "Go Issac Go!  Go Issac Go!  C'mon Issac you can do it!"  I can think of other radical folks that wish ill on massive amounts of people to further what they believe... they knocked down a couple of buildings in NYC.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on August 26, 2012, 10:40:39 PM
Whatever happened to the term "Global Warming"?

A historically cool summer happened, so they changed the term to "Climate Change."

Now we had a hot summer so they say this is proof.  Problem is even as North America has been breaking heat records and are in a drought Europe is abnormally cool and have been getting large amounts of rain.

In the 1970's the environmentalists worried about the new ice age that was once again going to cover North America with glaciers.  A few years later a failed presidential candidate who got bad grades in science makes a movie that show glaciers melting and predicts they will all be gone in a matter of years.

Guess a "Climate Change" proponent would ignore that fact.

I do believe that Climate Change happens.  There is a ton of evidence that where we live used to be tropical - the fossil evidence shows that.  We also know that this planet experienced an ice age, and that glaciers did cover much of North America at one point.

What I am NOT sold on is mankind is the source of Climate Change.  There are many other factors larger then us that causes that.  The glowing fusion furnace in the sky we call the sun, and the solar flares that erupt on it.  Meteors that have hit the planets surface in the past are believed to have caused climate change.  Volcanoes erupting have been documented to change weather patterns and temperatures on the planet. 

Lets face it - Global Warming or Climate Change is in fact a manifesto of the left to achieve their political goals, and many are too STUPID to see that as a fact.  They actually think that if they buy carbon credits they can offset the pollution their Prius makes, or their plane ride to go on vacation.  They actually think the Kyoto accords or signing Cap and Trade would perhaps save the planet, even as China spews far more pollution into the planet then the US does. 

Should we reduce pollution?  Of course.  Should we explore new technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?  Of course.  Should "global warming" or "climate change" be a religion that it has become?  I think not.




Some called it “global warming” but the scientists said that it was incorrect usage and the term was correctly changed to “climate change” a long time ago, not this year as you suggest.

Quote
In the thirty years leading up to the 1970s, available temperature recordings suggested that there was a cooling trend. As a result some scientists suggested that the current inter-glacial period could rapidly draw to a close, which might result in the Earth plunging into a new ice age over the next few centuries. This idea could have been reinforced by the knowledge that the smog that climatologists call ‘aerosols’ – emitted by human activities into the atmosphere – also caused cooling. In fact, as temperature recording has improved in coverage, it’s become apparent that the cooling trend was most pronounced in northern land areas and that global temperature trends were in fact relatively steady during the period prior to 1970.
At the same time as some scientists were suggesting we might be facing another ice age, a greater number published contradicting studies. Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects.
By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember.
 The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.  [url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm[/url]) 


Guess SCIENCE proved those people wrong.

Then I get confused, you make a case of no climate change then say you believe it….

While not all scientists are “sold” on climate change being caused by man, the vast majority do.
Quote
Lets face it - Global Warming or Climate Change is in fact a manifesto of the left to achieve their political goals, and many are too STUPID to see that as a fact.


Then back - apparently - to climate change being false and you have to insult to make your point.  Nice.  It is easier to see the money behind deniers, which is funded by pollutes for profit and big oil.  As you said earlier, some said the earth was cooling.  They staked their reputations on it and lost. Now with 80-90% of scientists behind climate change one wonders why so many would risk their reputations on bad science.  Frankly, I don’t get how someone can say that huge numbers of scientific experts in agreement are “stupid”, or the people that listen to those experts. 
But, since you claim it is a left wing “manifesto” show me the link to it, because I would love to read it and know who wrote it.  Until then I would rather listen to expert scientists that individually have come to the same conclusions and have written peer reviewed papers to back them up.

Quote
They actually think that if they buy carbon credits they can offset the pollution their Prius makes, or their plane ride to go on vacation.  They actually think the Kyoto accords or signing Cap and Trade would perhaps save the planet, even as China spews far more pollution into the planet then the US does. 

Who is saying that, or is it just ranting?
Quote
Should we reduce pollution?  Of course.  Should we explore new technologies to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?  Of course.  Should "global warming" or "climate change" be a religion that it has become?  I think not.


Again flip flop back to apparently saying climate change is real again.  Otherwise why bother.

I love the “religion” rant.  Nice touch.  Doesn’t make you seem like a right wing ideologue spouting the talking head email chain reposter.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on August 26, 2012, 10:43:43 PM
I enjoyed watching to coverage of TROPICAL STORM Issac the other night on ABC.

You would have thought it was the end days.  They had their "Extreme Weather" team covering the "Monster" Storm that was bearing down on the Haiti and surely about to kill and maim MILLIONS!  Then GASP it may be heading for Florida where it could disrupt our dear political process!

All the freaking HYPE!!! And for what?  To push an agenda.

And guess what, still TROPICAL STORM ISSAC as of right now.  The climate change crowd faces such a dilemma in these times, they NEED Issac to become a monster so they can hold it as proof that "climate change" is causing these EXTREME storms.  Except this storm and this Hurricane season has been nothing close to EXTREME.

Issac may well become a Hurricane.  It may well become a Major Hurricane (The latest satellite pictures show it is organizing and strengthening now that it is over the favorable Gulf of Mexico).  Guess what?  It is Hurricane season and this s#!t happens from time to time.

While most of us sit and pray that Issac has the least amount of impact on anyone, the radicals in the climate change crowd quietly sit in the background and chant "Go Issac Go!  Go Issac Go!  C'mon Issac you can do it!"  I can think of other radical folks that wish ill on massive amounts of people to further what they believe... they knocked down a couple of buildings in NYC.

Hurricanes are always big news.  If people are saying what you use quotes for, then that is sad, because the reason they are big news is because of the potential for loss of life and damage.  For anyone to make it an issue for or against, is sad.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on August 26, 2012, 11:34:22 PM
I used the quotes because those were EXACTLY the terms ABC was using.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tropical-storm-isaacs-threatens-haiti-17076620 (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tropical-storm-isaacs-threatens-haiti-17076620)

Hurricanes are only big news when they hit the US duck... very rarely does anyone give a flying fart about a category 5 storm that drills Belize or Honduras.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 27, 2012, 09:57:09 AM


Some called it “global warming” but the scientists said that it was incorrect usage and the term was correctly changed to “climate change” a long time ago, not this year as you suggest.



Duck.  I never suggested they changed the term this year.  You read that into it.

I also never flip - flopped.  You also read that into it.

The fact that the climate of the planet Earth has changed in the past is a matter of scientific record.  Since mankind had yet to invent the evil internal combustion engine or coal burning power plants or any of the other alleged sources of man made "climate change" probably were not a factor in these previous climate changes.

We also know from studying temperature data going back centuries that there have been hot periods and cold periods, and it does appear to be cyclical.

I can easily believe in Climate Change - but I don't believe in the religion that many have turned it into, and I am not sure that mankind has an appreciable effect on the eco system.  I look at the facts and these things have happened without the influence of man made pollution - so why would I think that man made pollution is the only source now?  Especially not when the scientific community says other planets are also heating up similar to the planet Earth.

That leads me to believe that there are some out there that is twisting "Science" to a political agenda and into a false religion.

Is that clear enough for you, or will you distort what I said line by line? :o
 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 27, 2012, 09:58:30 AM


But to call Greed evil, is simply misguided.


Not so, when it is the only thing that matters above all else(like the well being of your fellow man!), yes it is evil...Not to mention most big corporations own a few politicians to set things in their favor. All in the name of the all mighty dollar...Money isn't the end all be all thing for man to strive for.   More money doesn't mean happiness, it might bring a few pleasures, but you can not BUY happiness...


Good for them they EARNED IT!


So dirty deals and back stabbing are fine with you? The wanton destruction of the environment and the well being of fellow humans is fine as long as you get what you WANT, the very fabric of our life and liberty means nothing so long as you get something for yourself? I see where your values are...Like you've told people before, just OBEY, it's easier that way...Get a clue from your own advice...!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on August 27, 2012, 12:08:20 PM
Duck. I never suggested they changed the term this year. You read that into it.


I actually didn’t think you meant this year, as you said “historically cool summer” .  However, I was wrong in thinking that it was changed for clarity.  Upon checking both names have existed for decades and mean different things to the experts.  One deals with the warming of the planet, and the other the changes in climate of the planet.

“The argument "they changed the name" suggests that the term 'global warming' was previously the norm, and the widespread use of the term 'climate change' is now. However, this is simply untrue. For example, a seminal climate science work is Gilbert Plass' 1956 study 'The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change' (which coincidentally estimated the climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide at 3.6°C, not far off from today's widely accepted most likely value of 3°C). Barrett and Gast published a letter in Science in 1971 entitled simply 'Climate Change'. The journal 'Climatic Change' was created in 1977 (and is still published today). The IPCC was formed in 1988, and of course the 'CC' is 'climate change', not 'global warming'. There are many, many other examples of the use of the term 'climate change' many decades ago. There is nothing new whatsoever about the usage of the term.  http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)


Quote
I also never flip - flopped. You also read that into it.

The fact that the climate of the planet Earth has changed in the past is a matter of scientific record. Since mankind had yet to invent the evil internal combustion engine or coal burning power plants or any of the other alleged sources of man made "climate change" probably were not a factor in these previous climate changes.


Okay, I can accept that you meant cyclic or other natural changes, as opposed to man made, although that was not clear.  However, changes in the past does not rule out the changes now.

Quote
We also know from studying temperature data going back centuries that there have been hot periods and cold periods, and it does appear to be cyclical.
 

You are correct that we have cyclical periods.  When the scientists previously claimed a cyclical cooling they used the data of past time without mans influence to make that.  Just recently there was a topic talking about a new study that also concluded that we should be cooling.  That we are warming becomes opposite to what the cycle says it should be.  In geologic time, CO2 levels follow a warming of the planet.  This is mostly because the oceans store great quantities of CO2 and as the water warms it releases the CO2 adding to the warming.  The same geologic time measures show we are in a cyclical cooling, yet the total global temperatures are rising.  That global temperatures are not falling is why scientists have been asking “why?”  It hasn’t been “overnight” that scientists have more and more accepted that the reason is man.  The data suggested it all along, but most wanted more proof.  With time, more and more things that could be a factor are being ruled out.  Man’s effect, however, has not. 

Quote
I can easily believe in Climate Change - but I don't believe in the religion that many have turned it into, and I am not sure that mankind has an appreciable effect on the eco system. I look at the facts and these things have happened without the influence of man made pollution - so why would I think that man made pollution is the only source now? Especially not when the scientific community says other planets are also heating up similar to the planet Earth.


Again, I assume you mean “cyclical climate change” as opposed to the climate change possibly resulting from man’s effect.  Just guessing by what you said above.

Is it “religion” for scientists to study physics and understand nuclear fusion?  Is it “religion” for scientists to study biology and understand human physiology?  Is it “religion” for scientists to study and understand electricity?  Is it “religion” for scientists to study evolution because it is still just theory? 

I am glad you are unsure if man has an effect on the eco system.  Even scientists are not 100% certain; however, with the elimination of other possible factors the likelihood becomes stronger with time.  Geological cycles say we should be globally cooling, yet we are warming.  If you believe the scientists that have shown cyclical changes, and that the cycle should be cooling, why not admit that something other than “normal” is happening?  I am pretty sure; however, that no climate scientist is going to say, as you did, that man is the only source of climate change.  Part of climate change is natural, and part is not.  We have not had any meteors or other natural happenings to cause the abnormalities, so what is left?

Quote
That leads me to believe that there are some out there that is twisting "Science" to a political agenda and into a false religion.


It may lead YOU to that conclusion, because that’s what you want.  Would it do you good for scientists to say that atoms cannot be split?  Was Galileo’s science “junk” or “religion” because the science went against what people wanted to believe at the time?  With any science there is great discussion among the experts, just as with this.  Mostly it is about methods and questioning if they are logical and conclusive.  Many think that means they question the theory, but that is false.  They want the science to be as accurate as possible.  What is also obvious is the ones that refuse to accept the theory are backed by big oil and major polluters that don’t want the theory to become valid to people.  To me it seems scientists doing exactly as good science has always done is more credible than the ones that profit monetarily by claiming it false.  It seems to me denying reality is more “religion” than accepting science.

Quote
Is that clear enough for you, or will you distort what I said line by line? 


No need to be insulting.  I said what I got from what you wrote and you clarified.  Isn’t that what discussion is about?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 27, 2012, 01:30:18 PM
No need to be insulting.  I said what I got from what you wrote and you clarified.  Isn’t that what discussion is about?

Who is insulting?  Please quit projecting.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 27, 2012, 02:50:43 PM
Is that clear enough for you, or will you distort what I said line by line? :o 
Who is insulting?  Please quit projecting.
Seemed like an insult to me. I too must be projecting. 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 27, 2012, 03:57:01 PM
Seemed like an insult to me. I too must be projecting. 8*

Don't be so sensitive.  It's a tough world out there. 

Can't we all just get along?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 28, 2012, 10:19:09 AM
Don't be so sensitive.  It's a tough world out there. 

Can't we all just get along?
Sort of hypocritical considering your very first post started out with insults.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 28, 2012, 11:48:01 AM
Sort of hypocritical considering your very first post started out with insults.

What?  Because I said I wondered who actually watched MSNBC?

Hey - if you think that is an insult, I guess you should consider yourself insulted.

It was not meant that way, but if you want to go around with a chip on your shoulder someone might inadvertently knock it off once in awhile.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 28, 2012, 11:54:20 AM
What?  Because I said I wondered who actually watched MSNBC?

Hey - if you think that is an insult, I guess you should consider yourself insulted.

It was not meant that way, but if you want to go around with a chip on your shoulder someone might inadvertently knock it off once in awhile.
Quote
Now for putting in the first post on this in months I will be called names.  Have at it!

I am sorry I have taken so much time away from Frenchfry spreading propaganda 

Actually your posts have a John Kopke esk tone to them.

"I'm a conservative ATTACK ME!!!" 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 28, 2012, 12:09:38 PM
Actually your posts have a John Kopke esk tone to them.

"I'm a conservative ATTACK ME!!!" 8*

It is my experience that those who have nothing meaningful to say just resort to insults, attacks, distortions, and the while protesting that they are taking the high road.  I guess it is understandable.  If you can't argue with logic, facts, and examples of where your position has been effective what else can you do?

Now - before you get all bent out of shape my example was Obama - not you, but if you are walking around with a chip on your shoulder like MSNBC Fry and want to be offended please feel free.

Still waiting for our robust debate by the way.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 28, 2012, 12:11:45 PM
It is my experience that those who have nothing meaningful to say just resort to insults, attacks, distortions, and the while protesting that they are taking the high road. 
Are you the pot or the kettle?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 12:17:21 PM
What?  Because I said I wondered who actually watched MSNBC?

Hey - if you think that is an insult, I guess you should consider yourself insulted.

It was not meant that way, but if you want to go around with a chip on your shoulder someone might inadvertently knock it off once in awhile.



Yes it was, I read the post and it most defiantly was meant to insult...Which, by the way, the petty bickering has NOTHING to do with the topic...Chips on shoulders(?). Casting more veiled insults? Really? You seem to have one yourself, so don't go there... 8*

 You're doing nothing but making a mockery of the topic with your petty personal issues, which I find infuriating... (http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/62.gif)

Anyway, who cares what news source anyone watches... It's all the same...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 12:18:12 PM
Are you the pot or the kettle?

It would seem they want to be both... 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 28, 2012, 12:19:20 PM
It is my experience that those who have nothing meaningful to say just resort to insults, attacks, distortions, and the while protesting that they are taking the high road.  I guess it is understandable.  If you can't argue with logic, facts, and examples of where your position has been effective what else can you do?

Now - before you get all bent out of shape my example was Obama - not you, but if you are walking around with a chip on your shoulder like MSNBC Fry and want to be offended please feel free.

Still waiting for our robust debate by the way.
You've set the tone. Don't get your panties in a bunch when you receive responses that mirror your attitude.
Clearly you're a Fox News aficionado...doesn't matter that you're too ashamed to admit it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 28, 2012, 12:29:00 PM
You've set the tone. Don't get your panties in a bunch when you receive responses that mirror your attitude.
Clearly you're a Fox News aficionado...doesn't matter that you're too ashamed to admit it.

Wow. 

5 or 6 liberals ganging up on little old me, with righteous indignation that THEY have NEVER insulted anyone or called names.

Too Funny.

Once again - if you have NOTHING of substance to say resort to......

I TRIED having an intelligent debate on this board, but apparently you still aren't capable of that.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 28, 2012, 12:30:55 PM
Wow. 

5 or 6 liberals ganging up on little old me, with righteous indignation that THEY have NEVER insulted anyone or called names.

Don't be so sensitive.  It's a tough world out there. 

Pot or kettle?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 28, 2012, 12:38:07 PM
Pot or kettle?

Neither.

It would appear that I am more the poker stirring you guys up. ;D

Congrats on gaining employment.  I am glad things are looking up for you.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 12:42:47 PM
It would appear that I am more the poker stirring you guys up.



The admissions of a troll... :P
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 28, 2012, 12:43:08 PM

It would appear that I am more the poker stirring you guys up. ;D

Then I would suggest you quit trying to claim innocence.

And EVERYONE (just so you know I'm not picking on you Monroe Native) please, quit cluttering up my topic and get back to the original topic.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 28, 2012, 12:43:55 PM

There are no comparisons to be made. This is not like war or plague or a stockmarket crash. We are ill-equipped, historically and psychologically, to understand it, which is one of the reasons why so many refuse to accept that it is happening.

What we are seeing, here and now, is the transformation of the atmospheric physics of this planet. Three weeks before the likely minimum, the melting of Arctic sea ice has already broken the record set in 2007. The daily rate of loss is now 50% higher than it was that year. The daily sense of loss – of the world we loved and knew – cannot be quantified so easily.

The Arctic has been warming roughly twice as quickly as the rest of the northern hemisphere. This is partly because climate breakdown there is self-perpetuating. As the ice melts, for example, exposing the darker sea beneath, heat that would previously have been reflected back into space is absorbed.

This great dissolution, of ice and certainties, is happening so much faster than most climate scientists predicted that one of them reports: "It feels as if everything I've learned has become obsolete." In its last assessment, published in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change noted that "in some projections, Arctic late-summer sea ice disappears almost entirely by the latter part of the 21st century". These were the most extreme forecasts in the panel's range. Some scientists now forecast that the disappearance of Arctic sea-ice in late summer could occur in this decade or the next.

As I've warned repeatedly, but to little effect, the IPCC's assessments tend to be conservative. This is unsurprising when you see how many people have to approve them before they are published. There have been a few occasions – such as its estimate of the speed at which glaciers would be lost in the Himalayas – on which the panel has overstated the case. But it looks as if these will be greatly outnumbered by the occasions on which the panel has understated it.

The melting disperses another belief: that the temperate parts of the world – where most of the rich nations are located – will be hit last and least, while the poorer nations will be hit first and worst. New knowledge of the way in which the destruction of the Arctic sea ice affects northern Europe and North America suggests that this is no longer true. A paper published earlier this year in Geophysical Research Letters shows that Arctic warming is likely to be responsible for the extremes now hammering the once-temperate nations.

The north polar jet stream is an air current several hundred kilometres wide, travelling eastwards around the hemisphere. The current functions as a barrier, separating the cold, wet weather to the north from the warmer, drier weather to the south. Many of the variations in our weather are caused by great travelling meanders – Rossby waves – in the jet stream.

Arctic heating, the paper shows, both slows the Rossby waves and makes them steeper and wider. Instead of moving on rapidly, the weather gets stuck. Regions to the south of the stalled meander wait for weeks or months for rain; regions to the north (or underneath it) wait for weeks or months for a break from the rain. Instead of a benign succession of sunshine and showers, we get droughts or floods. During the winter a slow, steep meander can connect us directly to the polar weather, dragging severe ice and snow far to the south of its usual range. This mechanism goes a long way towards explaining the shift to sustained – and therefore extreme – weather patterns around the northern hemisphere.

I have no idea what is coming to Europe and North America this winter and next summer, in the wake of the record ice melt, but it's unlikely to be pleasant. Please note that this record represents a loss of about 30% of Arctic sea ice, against the long-term average. When that climbs to 50% or 70% or 90%, the impacts are likely to be worse.

Our governments do nothing. Having abandoned any pretence of responding to the environmental crisis during the Earth summit in June, now they stare stupidly as the ice on which we stand dissolves. Nothing – or worse than nothing. Their one unequivocal response to the melting has been to facilitate the capture of the oil and fish it exposes.

The companies that caused this disaster are scrambling to profit from it. On Sunday Shell requested an extension to its exploratory drilling period in the Chukchi Sea, off the north-west coast of Alaska. This would push its operations hard against the moment when the ice re-forms and any spills they cause are locked in. The Russian oil company Gazprom is using the great melt to try to drill in the Pechora Sea, north-east of Murmansk. After turning its Arctic lands in the Komi republic into the Niger delta of the north (repeated oil spills are left unremediated in the tundra), Russia wants to extend this industry into one of the world's most fragile ecosystems, where ice, storms and darkness make decontamination almost impossible.

As I write, activists from Greenpeace, whom I regard as heroes, are chained to Gazprom's supply vessel, preventing the rig from operating. These people are stepping in where all governments have failed. David Cameron, who still claims to lead the greenest government ever, is no longer hugging huskies. In June he struck an agreement with the Norwegian prime minister "to enable sustainable development of Arctic energy". Sustainable development, of course, means drilling for oil.

Is this how our children will see it: that we destroyed the benign conditions that made our world of wonders possible, and then used the opportunity to amplify the damage? All of us, of course, can claim to have acted with other aims in mind, or not to have acted at all, as the other immediacies of life seemed more important. But – unless we respond at last – the results follow as surely as if we had sought to engineer them.

Stupidity, greed, passivity? Just as comparisons evaporate, so do these words. The ice, that solid platform on which, we now discover, so much rested, melts into air. Our pretensions to peace, prosperity and progress are likely to follow. "And like the baseless fabric of this vision, / The cloud-capp'd towers, the gorgeous palaces, / The solemn temples, the great globe itself, / Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/27/arctic-ice-rich-world-disaster?fb=optOut (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/27/arctic-ice-rich-world-disaster?fb=optOut)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 28, 2012, 12:47:50 PM


The admissions of a troll... :P

Of course.  We are all trolls.  We live in the lower peninsula "under" the bridge.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 12:58:30 PM
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.  The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different sources of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. Studying these climate data collected over many years reveal the signals of a changing climate.

Certain facts about Earth's climate can not be disputed:

    * The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

    * Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in solar output, in the Earth’s orbit, and in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 01:07:07 PM
Sea level rise:
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.

Global temperature rise:
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed since 1880.  Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.  Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increases.

Warming oceans:
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.

Shrinking ice sheets:
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and 2005.

Declining Arctic sea ice:

Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.

Glacial retreat:
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.

Extreme weather events:
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.

Ocean acidification:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on August 28, 2012, 01:38:48 PM
Of course.  We are all trolls.  We live in the lower peninsula "under" the bridge.

LOL I have never heard that before and I like it!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 01:43:21 PM

LOL I have never heard that before and I like it!



Like fluffy said, it's just another defection...BTW, it's an old saying, surprised you haven't heard of that one...lol
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on August 28, 2012, 01:44:55 PM
Maybe it's because I am really from Iowa.  I have lived here a long time though.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 01:50:00 PM
Maybe it's because I am really from Iowa.  I have lived here a long time though.


When I think of Iowa, I think of corn and beef... ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 28, 2012, 02:16:51 PM
Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change; humans are now the dominant force...!

A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion. To understand this, first you have to ask why climate has changed in the past. It doesn't happen by magic. Climate changes when it's forced to change. When our planet suffers an energy imbalance and gains or loses heat, global temperature changes.

(http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/facts/warmingindicators-01.jpg)

There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth's climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet's energy balance, they force climate to change.

(http://icons.wxug.com/metgraphics/climate/facts/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif)

So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists give up the debate because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop debating, they also start relying on each others' work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted and relied upon.

In the field of climate studies, which is informed by many different disciplines, the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped debating what is causing climate change—and that's nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed papers on the subject "global climate change" published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man-made. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods analysis instead (Oreskes 2004).

Several subsequent studies confirm that "...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

We should also consider official scientific institutions and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one.

In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on August 28, 2012, 02:59:56 PM
Humans and animals currently live in an average temperature of 5 °C in Helsinki and 27 °C in Singapore. If the climate continues to warm less than a degree per century, which it well may not, should we really be concerned about the ability to adapt?

  Climate is driven by energy from the sun. The greenhouse effect stops enough of this energy from escaping back into space, resulting in the earth having a temperature capable of supporting life as we know it. Without greenhouse gases the average earth temperature would be minus 18 °C, rather than our current livable plus 15 °C. Natural water vapour and clouds make up about 95% of the greenhouse effect, with CO2 responsible for 3.6%. Of this, about 0.12%, or 0.039 °C can be attributed to human activities. Further incremental increases in CO2 become less and less effective. 



CO2 is essential for all plant and animal life and thus some say it is the greenest gas on earth.

Since the media thrives on bad news, most of them primarily report the disaster opinions and thus continually tend to frighten the public. Current media and political scare-mongering is based on their claim that warming is bad and humans are to blame. Short term temperature or precipitation extremities are often claimed as proof, but to quote Mark Twain, "Climate is what we expect; weather is what we get". Some say they are barking up the wrong tree. In fact we wish they would leave our trees alone!

http://www.climatechange101.ca/ (http://www.climatechange101.ca/)

So are humans really the dominant force?  Or the dominant force in .039 degrees C. greenhouse effect.

So much data, so much manipulation.  Sometimes it gets harder to fit the facts into the narrative.  And before you start telling me to get my head out the sand, try looking at the links from this site (lower right hand side):   http://wattsupwiththat.com/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)  The link categories are Lukewarmers, Political Climate, Pro AGW Views, Skeptical Views, amongst others.  I've read many articles and not one has convinced me that we're doomed.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 28, 2012, 03:53:05 PM

When I think of Iowa, I think of corn and beef... ;D

Keeping it on topic I think of the wonderful cows I like to eat that emit methane gas that is bad for the ozone layer.... :-[
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on August 28, 2012, 06:11:13 PM

When I think of Iowa, I think of corn and beef... ;D
Now you can add mermaid to your list for Iowa! :)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 29, 2012, 07:39:53 AM
I've read many articles and not one has convinced me that we're doomed.

You will never convince someone who believes in global warming or climate change that it isn't real, or that if it indeed happening that the biggest cause of it is not due to man made factors such as pollution.

They believe in global warming or climate change out of blind faith - though they would argue it is due to irrefutable scientific evidence that some are just too stupid, blind, or greedy to accept.

Just as I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior through faith, they believe that man made climate change is real.

Convincing them they may be incorrect would be just a futile as convincing me I believe in a 2000 year old hoax.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 29, 2012, 09:37:51 AM
You will never convince someone who believes in global warming or climate change that it isn't real, or that if it indeed happening that the biggest cause of it is not due to man made factors such as pollution.

They believe in global warming or climate change out of blind faith - though they would argue it is due to irrefutable scientific evidence that some are just too stupid, blind, or greedy to accept.

Just as I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior through faith, they believe that man made climate change is real.

Convincing them they may be incorrect would be just a futile as convincing me I believe in a 2000 year old hoax.
Right back atcha.

Especially the stupid, blind and greedy part.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 29, 2012, 09:41:42 AM
Right back atcha.

Especially the stupid, blind and greedy part.

I put that in there just for you.

It is kind of like if I just insult myself I can save you guys the effort.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 29, 2012, 09:48:23 AM
I put that in there just for you.

It is kind of like if I just insult myself I can save you guys the effort.
Well I must admit that that is the only part that I really had a problem with.

Stating your opinion is one thing, but when you have to use insults like that, it shows your true character and that you feel a desire for someone to attack you back.

Glad you got what you wanted. Still waiting on those intelligent conversations you promised.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 29, 2012, 09:56:53 AM
Keeping it on topic I think of the wonderful cows I like to eat that emit methane gas that is bad for the ozone layer.... :-[


Go to Hell...I was responding to someone else and it has nothing to do with YOU!
  If I want to joke with someone who the Hell are you to correct me...!

Anyway...As to the topic!

Methane (CH4) is a greenhouse gas that remains in the atmosphere for approximately 9-15 years. Methane is over 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year period and is emitted from a variety of natural and human-influenced sources. Human-influenced sources include landfills, natural gas and petroleum systems, agricultural activities, coal mining, stationary and mobile combustion, wastewater treatment, and certain industrial process.  Natural sources are from livestock(which is small compared to the rest) and geothermal activities.

It has NOTHING to do with the ozone layer...So get your ******* facts straight before you jump my ****!

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baby Hitler on August 29, 2012, 10:05:30 AM

Ocean acidification:
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent. This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
I wonder what "scientific" reason climate change deniers have to explain away that.

Maybe they will just state that the fish like the extra CO2. 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on August 29, 2012, 10:14:34 AM
I wonder what "scientific" reason climate change deniers have to explain away that.

Maybe they will just state that the fish like the extra CO2. 8*



One of the observable effects is mass die off of coral...The acidity makes it impossible for new coral to form, it simply gets dissolved as it's forming and dies...Other soft bodied sea creatures such as jelly fish are in danger as well from this in our time, this isn't something to worry about down the road, this is happening right now...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=ocean-acidification-hits-great-barrier-reef)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 03, 2012, 06:01:05 PM
Baby Hitler -

That name is still very offensive!

I can't wait for my friend Fluffy Bunny to rip you to shreds!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 12, 2012, 12:16:19 PM
Scientist Warn Melting Of Polar Ice Expected To Accelerate Over The Next Few Years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muYiHgGZh18&feature=plcp#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on September 12, 2012, 05:37:07 PM
Baby Hitler -

That name is still very offensive!

I can't wait for my friend Fluffy Bunny to rip you to shreds!



Why?  Hitler was a baby once... (http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/23.gif)

(http://www.gpsjr.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/A-Real-Baby-Hitler.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on September 13, 2012, 02:21:55 PM
(http://www.climatecentral.org/images/uploads/news/9_12_12_andrew_news_seaiceminaug26.jpeg)

The record loss of Arctic sea ice this summer will echo throughout the weather patterns affecting the U.S. and Europe this winter, climate scientists said on Wednesday, since added heat in the Arctic influences the jet stream and may make extreme weather and climate events more likely.

The “astounding” loss of sea ice this year is adding a huge amount of heat to the Arctic Ocean and the atmosphere, said Jennifer Francis, an atmospheric scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey. “It’s like having a new energy source for the atmosphere.” Francis was one of three scientists on a conference call Wednesday to discuss the ramifications of sea ice loss for areas outside the Arctic. The call was hosted by Climate Nexus.

On August 26, Arctic sea ice extent broke the record low set in 2007, and it has continued to decline since, dropping below 1.5 million square miles. That represents a 45 percent reduction in the area covered by sea ice compared to the 1980s and 1990s, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), and may be unprecedented in human history. The extent of sea ice that melted so far this year is equivalent to the size of Canada and Alaska combined.

The loss of sea ice initiates a feedback loop known as Arctic amplification. As sea ice melts, it exposes darker ocean waters to incoming solar radiation. The ocean then absorbs far more energy than had been the case when the brightly colored sea ice was present, and this increases water and air temperatures, thereby melting even more sea ice.

Peter Wadhams, the head of the polar ocean physics group at the University of Cambridge in the U.K., told BBC News on September 6 that the added heat from sea ice loss is equivalent to the warming from 20 years of carbon dioxide emissions. Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas that is causing manmade global warming.

During the fall, when the sun sets once again and the Arctic Ocean begins to refreeze, the heat in the ocean gets released back into the atmosphere. Since the jet stream, which is a corridor of strong winds at upper levels of the atmosphere that generally blows from west to east across the northern mid-latitudes, is powered by the temperature difference between the Arctic and areas farther south, any alteration of that temperature difference is bound to alter the jet stream — with potentially profound implications. It just so happens that the jet stream steers day-to-day weather systems.

Francis published a study last year in which she showed that Arctic warming might already be causing the jet stream to become more amplified in a north-south direction. In other words, the fall and winter jet stream may be getting wavier. A more topsy-turvy jet stream can yield more extreme weather events, Francis said, because weather and climate extremes are often associated with large undulations in the jet stream that can take a long time to dissipate.

“We know that certain types of extreme weather events are related to weather that takes a long time to change,” Francis said.

While there are indications that the jet stream is slowing and may be more prone to making huge dips, or “troughs,” scientists have a limited ability to pinpoint how this will play out in the coming winter season.

“The locations of those waves really depends on other factors,” Francis said, such as El Niño and a natural climate pattern known as the Arctic Oscillation. “I can only say that it’s probably going to be a very interesting winter,” she said.

Francis’ work has linked Arctic warming to the unusually cold and snowy winters of 2009-10 and 2010-11, during which the U.S. East Coast and parts of Europe were pummeled by fierce winter storms and experienced cooler-than-average conditions. The winter of 2011-12 was much milder, by comparison, but Francis said it, too, was consistent with her research. Not all meteorologists agree on the Arctic connection theory, but that may change with time.

Jim Overland, an oceanographer at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory, said the inconsistency of the past three winters doesn’t mean the Arctic connection hypothesis is invalid.

“People like direct causality, [the notion that] if you lose the ice every year it will cause the same effect,” Overland said. But the chaotic nature of the atmosphere means that all that scientists can say with a high degree of confidence is that “the number of [extreme] events somewhere are destined to increase” as a result of rapid Arctic climate change, Overland said.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on September 13, 2012, 09:28:03 PM
How does that picture compare to other ice cap photos from prolonged periods of La Nina?  Do you even care?

Numbers are in for summer 2012... cooler than last summer.  Does that mean that maybe we are making progress, or there is a cycle change afoot?  Do you really care?

"Shocking" snippets to bolster public support for unfounded conclusions.  That is all photos like that are.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on September 14, 2012, 09:39:04 AM
How does that picture compare to other ice cap photos from prolonged periods of La Nina?  Do you even care?

Numbers are in for summer 2012... cooler than last summer.  Does that mean that maybe we are making progress, or there is a cycle change afoot?  Do you really care?

"Shocking" snippets to bolster public support for unfounded conclusions.  That is all photos like that are.
I'm not sure how to reply to your post, or even if I should. I will try and do what I can to answer your questions.

As far as having pictures of a prolonged period of La Nina, I don't have one. I did find a time lapse video of the polar ice caps from 1978 to 2009. It's about 4 minutes long. If you will note that in 2007 the ice coverage that does remain is grey, noting an coverage that is less thick.

Arctic Sea Ice timelapse from 1978 to 2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6j8SGs_gnFk#)

The La Nina and El Nino effects are caused by prolonged changes in the Jet stream. The jet stream has a significant impact on our daily weather patterns, and is influenced by temperature inversions. With less ice coverage on the polar cap, no one is really sure what effect this will have on the jet stream, only that it will have an effect.

Also of note is the fact that ice will reflect the sun rays, and that ocean water will instead absorb those rays and thus retain the heat, which will increase the warming effect.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 14, 2012, 10:37:35 PM
How does that picture compare to other ice cap photos from prolonged periods of La Nina?  Do you even care?

Numbers are in for summer 2012... cooler than last summer.  Does that mean that maybe we are making progress, or there is a cycle change afoot?  Do you really care?

"Shocking" snippets to bolster public support for unfounded conclusions.  That is all photos like that are.
Gee...forget about what all those scientists are saying. I'd rather hear the qualified opinions of a pizza guy. Please continue.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on September 15, 2012, 03:29:06 AM
Gee...forget about what all those scientists are saying. I'd rather hear the qualified opinions of a pizza guy. Please continue.

I will put my knowledge of the subject up against yours everyday of the week... twice on Sunday's.

Of course copy/pasta will not be considered as "your thoughts".  So right off the top... YOU LOSE!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on September 15, 2012, 10:25:32 AM
How does that picture compare to other ice cap photos from prolonged periods of La Nina?  Do you even care?

Numbers are in for summer 2012... cooler than last summer.  Does that mean that maybe we are making progress, or there is a cycle change afoot?  Do you really care?

"Shocking" snippets to bolster public support for unfounded conclusions.  That is all photos like that are.


I suppose snide remarks to the contrary are more appropriate and make it more real...Also, they are hardly unfounded conclusions!

Even considering that this is a natural cycle, which I do believe and also that we are accelerating and intensifying the effects of, the outcome and circumstance is still the same.  The climate is changing and we have to adapt with it and change our way of doing things, such as our means of common transportation and energy production, we simply produce more pollution than the Earth can deal with on it's own...That's not a chicken little call for help, but a sound reasoning of what needs to be accomplished before it's too late.

Maybe YOU need to check your facts again...

I've gone over this so many times, it's becoming redundant....The science is sound and the facts can be verified with simple observation of the shift in the extremes of our current environment that have occurred in the past few decades.  You can not deny the obvious and observable fact of dwindling arctic ice, retreating glaciers the world round, the increasing acidity of the oceans, and a steady rise in atmospheric temperature...None of which have  shown any sign of slowing.  Now with those FACTS, how can you say it is of no concern and that man can just keep doing what he pleases without regard.  That's a foolish and arrogant notion...But, that is the way of mankind now isn't it...?

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on September 15, 2012, 11:10:54 AM
I never said it isn't a concern and it is something to watch but even using those "pictures" as "evidence" there have been times of greater ice melt.  If you still think our behaviors have not changed to become more environmentally concious then... well I can't help you there.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on September 15, 2012, 11:24:10 AM
I never said it isn't a concern and it is something to watch but even using those "pictures" as "evidence" there have been times of greater ice melt.  If you still think our behaviors have not changed to become more environmentally concious then... well I can't help you there.


You do understand what I'm saying though, right?

All of this nay saying gives way to people ignoring the issue entirely...If it's not thrown in their face on a daily basis, no one will take notice or take action...That's just the nature of our species.

What actions that have taken place or more akin to token gestures than real solutions.   I'm trying to be seriously real about this...The problem is bigger than what small actions can solve.  Everyone doing their part surely helps, but it will take major changes in our way of thinking and the structure of our infrastructure for any real solution to work.  In other words, people have to keep an open mind about this and willingly adapt to future changes.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 20, 2013, 02:16:44 PM
Falling off the Climate Cliff

"The fiscal cliff is a tragic example of an all-too-common malady: managing by living crisis to crisis. In this case, it was almost entirely a self-created crisis, but the underlying financial problems, such as increasing healthcare costs and entitlement spending, have been building for some time. Waiting until things are really, really bad before acting not only does not to prevent crises, but makes them worse when they do happen (a truth my chiropractor has kindly but insistently pointed out to me when I wait until I can only hobble before getting care for my troublesome back)."*

Taxes going up on the rich is not our biggest problem. Global catastrophic climate change is reaching a breaking point. Why isn't this getting as much coverage as the fiscal cliff?

Falling off the Climate Cliff (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjhRN1CwLiQ#ws)

==============================================

Cloud Brightening - Could It Really Curb Climate Change?

"The godfather of cloud brightening is John Latham, a British cloud physicist who first proposed the idea in 1990.

He calculates that increasing the average reflectivity of maritime clouds from about 50 to 60 percent would be enough to offset the warming produced by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, a finding supported by other scientists."*

There may be an alternative method to mitigate the impact of climate change- cloud brightening. Could it really be a viable way to help stop global warming?

Cloud Brightening - Could It Really Curb Climate Change? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YydkLxGGjL4#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on February 02, 2013, 09:29:51 PM
So.....  for a long time I have said I believe the climate does change on this planet, I just am not convinced that man generated factors is a big driver.

So here is a UN report that is leaked where the UN admits that THE SUN may be playing a roll in it - IMAGINE THAT!

I am sure it won't stop Obama from pushing his green agenda.  Barry doesn't let facts get in the way of a Liberal Agenda.

Quote
The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?

A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.

“[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate,” reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The man who leaked the report, StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls, told FoxNews.com that the U.N.’s statements on solar activity were his main motivation for leaking the document.

'The main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.'
- StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls.  “The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself,” Rawls wrote on his website in December, when he first leaked the report.


Read more: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2JnaV4nLn[/url] ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/01/report-show-un-admitting-solar-activity-may-play-significant-role-in-global/#ixzz2JnaV4nLn[/url])


Yes I know it is from Fox News.  It isn't an unbiased source like MSNBC's Rachel Maddow or Chris Matthews.  It is probably all made up by some righty.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on February 05, 2013, 01:14:38 AM
Last year was 10th (not THE WARMEST) on record...  I guess all the cold January weather really has the GW crowd in kina a tizzy too.  Lot of them pretty PO'ed the NOAA for proclaiming 2012 as the 10th warmest, after all this was supposed to be their springboard into drowning polar bears and such.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on February 05, 2013, 01:18:48 AM
Falling off the Climate Cliff

"The fiscal cliff is a tragic example of an all-too-common malady: managing by living crisis to crisis. In this case, it was almost entirely a self-created crisis, but the underlying financial problems, such as increasing healthcare costs and entitlement spending, have been building for some time. Waiting until things are really, really bad before acting not only does not to prevent crises, but makes them worse when they do happen (a truth my chiropractor has kindly but insistently pointed out to me when I wait until I can only hobble before getting care for my troublesome back)."*

Taxes going up on the rich is not our biggest problem. Global catastrophic climate change is reaching a breaking point. Why isn't this getting as much coverage as the fiscal cliff?

Falling off the Climate Cliff ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjhRN1CwLiQ#ws[/url])

==============================================

Cloud Brightening - Could It Really Curb Climate Change?

"The godfather of cloud brightening is John Latham, a British cloud physicist who first proposed the idea in 1990.

He calculates that increasing the average reflectivity of maritime clouds from about 50 to 60 percent would be enough to offset the warming produced by a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, a finding supported by other scientists."*

There may be an alternative method to mitigate the impact of climate change- cloud brightening. Could it really be a viable way to help stop global warming?

Cloud Brightening - Could It Really Curb Climate Change? ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YydkLxGGjL4#ws[/url])


Well S**T... I thought TYT would actually have something to support their views other than their ideas...  I guess I was wrong.

Cenk and girlCenk should stick to what they know best... the time to show up for "work"...  They are getting even more pathetic and I can only assume they are bing encouraged by DNC $$$$!!!!

Go Fry Go!!!!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 06, 2013, 01:37:05 PM
Well S**T... I thought TYT would actually have something to support their views other than their ideas...  I guess I was wrong.

Cenk and girlCenk should stick to what they know best... the time to show up for "work"...  They are getting even more pathetic and I can only assume they are bing encouraged by DNC $$$$!!!!

Go Fry Go!!!!
Attacking the messenger didn't prove that the message was wrong.
Tossing in something you hate such as the DNC was a bit random but whatever.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on February 06, 2013, 01:39:30 PM
Global Warming Hoax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Io-Tb7vTamY#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on February 06, 2013, 01:44:37 PM
The Global Warming Hoax Explained for Dummies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nq4Bc2WCsdE#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on February 06, 2013, 01:45:22 PM
Former NASA Scientists... Global Warming Hoax (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=aEaFzhoS67I#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Baggins on February 06, 2013, 05:48:03 PM
LOL, receding glaciers beg to differ... 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on February 06, 2013, 05:52:02 PM
Listening to the scientists working in Antarctica was an eye opening experience for me.  Would I want to work there? No way, but I would like to cruise thru there once again! :)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 11, 2013, 02:13:26 PM
"Fox News Watch" this past weekend addressed the media's positive coverage of President Obama's second inaugural party. Conclusions: Way too fawning; not as skeptical as the coverage of George W. Bush's second party; and so on. Jon Scott, host of "Fox News Watch," made clear that he wasn't part of the adoration crowd."*

Climate change is a topic that seems to get little coverage-- because it doesn't. The nation's leading newspapers have a very limited number of environmental reporters and Fox calls climate change "not a pressing issue." But the issue is more pressing now than ever.

Climate Change - The Story No One is Covering (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cQv0DEaHvc#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 11, 2013, 02:14:23 PM
"Even by the standards of the super-rich, Charles and David Koch are extraordinarily wealthy. Together they own most of Koch Industries, one of the largest private conglomerates in America with annual revenues of around $100bn (£62.5bn), and interests as diverse as energy, petrochemicals, pulp and paper."*

A shocking amount of money is being spent to blot out climate change science and education. Which billionaires are dumping their money into this pseudo scientific campaign?

Billionaires Choking Out Climate Change Science (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3OO34iarY#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on February 12, 2013, 03:55:21 AM
LOL, receding glaciers beg to differ... 8*

Yes so does 40 inces of snow in northeast.  Or not!

Summer is hot.  Winter is cold.  Who knew?

Lets measure global temps for hot in warm areas, and cold temps in areas that are cold and call it science!

Global temp measuring stations are grouped primarily in warm climates (aka population dense areas) and are far more numerous than in decades past.  Who would have ever thought the measured mean global temp would rise given the rigged game?  I am astonished that it has gone up so little.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on February 12, 2013, 03:57:59 AM
2013 distribution for new US temperature measuring sites:

20 HI
15 TX
14 Southern AZ
10 FL
5 anywhere north of the Ohio River since there are actually flucuations in temperature and we don't want to seem like we have rigged the game.

I now fully extend my middle finger to "global warming" as the earth settles into one of its coldest winters ever.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on February 12, 2013, 01:12:32 PM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c10709720130212120100.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 12, 2013, 01:14:42 PM
Yes so does 40 inces of snow in northeast.  Or not!

Summer is hot.  Winter is cold.  Who knew?

Lets measure global temps for hot in warm areas, and cold temps in areas that are cold and call it science!

Global temp measuring stations are grouped primarily in warm climates (aka population dense areas) and are far more numerous than in decades past.  Who would have ever thought the measured mean global temp would rise given the rigged game?  I am astonished that it has gone up so little.
2013 distribution for new US temperature measuring sites:

20 HI
15 TX
14 Southern AZ
10 FL
5 anywhere north of the Ohio River since there are actually flucuations in temperature and we don't want to seem like we have rigged the game.

I now fully extend my middle finger to "global warming" as the earth settles into one of its coldest winters ever.
No point in revisiting what the vast majority of scientists have said on the subject since the only truth to you is what's in front of your face....but I've noticed those same rules don't apply when it comes to religion.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Arghi Murkurhgi on February 12, 2013, 02:50:37 PM
(http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/560033_561093467234969_717818788_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on February 16, 2013, 09:43:02 AM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/ca021513dBP20130212114606.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on February 16, 2013, 05:36:48 PM
No point in revisiting what the vast majority of scientists have said on the subject since the only truth to you is what's in front of your face....but I've noticed those same rules don't apply when it comes to religion.

I have no idea what your point is.

As data continues to roll in the actual gravity of 2012 and its warmth continues to decline.

What was happily boasted as the warmest year ever by most of the global warming crowd in a "we were right, we were gdamn rigth" tone, has now been slowly and QUIETLY moved to the 10th warmest year according to NOAA.  The year is now grouped with many others in the decade as some of the warmest, but since the records only go back 100 or so years, and even by the agencies admission that data is limited by comparison because of the increased number of recording stations we have today and the better technology we have to gather and analyze the data, the statistic IS NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF OF ANYTHING... unless of course you are a global warming profiteer (er I mean global warming scientist)!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Arghi Murkurhgi on February 18, 2013, 12:54:32 PM
The real big money is in climate change denial.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-climate-denial (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/donors-trust-climate-denial)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 18, 2013, 08:31:56 PM
The 'Change' in Climate Change: Threat of Climate Disaster Back in The Forefront (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3p0sSsNFu8#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 23, 2013, 02:37:31 PM
Largest 'Climate Change' Rally in U.S. History at The National Mall, Washington

Largest 'Climate Change' Rally in U.S. History at The National Mall, Washington (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2rIjyDghQk#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on February 23, 2013, 10:24:08 PM
Climate Change/Global Warming Debated - Ron Meyer - Kayleigh McEnany - Neil Cavuto - 2-18-13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=y34R7hSpEb0#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on March 13, 2013, 05:00:54 AM
Earth Warmer Than in Most of the Past 11,300 Years

The Earth is warmer now than during 70 to 80 percent of the time stretching back to the last Ice Age, according to researchers from Oregon State and Harvard universities who studied data from more than 73 global sites.

The findings also show that temperature-change rates are accelerating, Shaun Marcott, a scientist at Oregon State in Corvallis and one of the paper’s authors, said yesterday in an interview. The study was published today by the journal Science.

More here:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-07/earth-warmer-than-in-most-of-the-past-11-300-years.html (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-07/earth-warmer-than-in-most-of-the-past-11-300-years.html)

But of course I'm sure a right-wing moron will point to how cold it is right now.  8*

Study Of Past 11,300 Years Shows That Global Warming Is All Too Real

One common argument used to dismiss evidence of man-made global warming is that the research doesn't extend back far enough. What if, climate change deniers argue, our current warming trend is part of a recurring longer term pattern that's happened naturally way back in the past, long before Adam and Eve rode their dinosaurs to the artisanal fig leaf market? Well, a new study examines the last 11,300 and finds that the speed of warming in the past 100 years is unprecedented, and by the end of this century the planet will have gotten hotter than ever.

More here:
http://gothamist.com/2013/03/08/global_warming_will_make_the_holoce.php (http://gothamist.com/2013/03/08/global_warming_will_make_the_holoce.php)

=========================

The Earth Is Getting Hotter Faster Than It Ever Has Since Dawn Of Civilization

http://www.businessinsider.com/earths-updated-warming-record-11300-years-2013-3 (http://www.businessinsider.com/earths-updated-warming-record-11300-years-2013-3)

======================

GAO adds climate change, weather satellite delays to high-risk list
http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130214/DEPARTMENTS05/302140001/GAO-adds-climate-change-weather-satellite-delays-high-risk-list (http://www.federaltimes.com/article/20130214/DEPARTMENTS05/302140001/GAO-adds-climate-change-weather-satellite-delays-high-risk-list)

=====================

"Average Temperatures Were Higher In The Past Decade Than Over Most Of The Previous 11,300 Year!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtbKJfklkJw#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on March 13, 2013, 06:56:24 AM
Well I can shoot you first story all to shreds... 

"who studied data from more than 73 global sites"

I bet there is real realiable recorded data from 9300 BC.

Take the latest greatest soundbite and run with it I guess, as long as it fits the agenda.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on April 17, 2013, 10:52:56 PM
GOP Rep: Bible's Great Flood Disproves Climate Change

"Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) turned to the Bible on Wednesday during a congressional hearing, using the Great Flood to support his claim that climate change isn't man-made, BuzzFeed Politics reported.

During his remarks on H.R. 3, a bill that would grant Congress the authority to circumvent President Barack Obama and approve the Keystone XL pipeline, Barton acknowledged the existence of climate change, but argued that it is steered by natural causes."*

When discussing the Keystone XL pipeline, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), known for protecting BP after their disastrous Gulf oil spill, explains why climate change can't be true. His answer? The great flood from the Bible that you may know from the story of Noah's ark.

GOP Rep: Bible's Great Flood Disproves Climate Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLM6L9MYpkE#ws)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on May 04, 2013, 08:53:18 PM
Quote
How do you top making national news for bigotry? Trying getting people to "Give Up (Eating) Hamburgers to Stop Climate Change."

For loony lefty syndicated columnist David Sirota, it's all just another day at the office. Sirota made national news for his bizarre and bigoted hope that the Boston bomber would turn out to be "a white American."

Fresh off that fiasco, Sirota has turned his sights to changing the climate by changing America's diet. According to Sirota's May 2 column, "the fastest way to reduce climate change" simply "requires us all to eat fewer animal products." In cast that wasn't sufficiently clear, he added that "we are incinerating the planet and dooming future generations simply because too many of us like to eat cheeseburgers." Sirota's article on the left-wing site Salon included a photo of what appeared to be a bacon cheeseburger with an egg on top of it.

"That's right; essentially, if every fourth time someone craved, say, beef, chicken or cow milk they instead opted for a veggie burger, a bean burrito or water, we have a chance to halt the emergency," he added.


http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-gainor/lefty-sirota-we-are-incinerating-planetbecause-too-many-us-eat-cheeseburgers (http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-gainor/lefty-sirota-we-are-incinerating-planetbecause-too-many-us-eat-cheeseburgers)

 8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on May 05, 2013, 07:28:24 AM
[url]http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-gainor/lefty-sirota-we-are-incinerating-planetbecause-too-many-us-eat-cheeseburgers[/url] ([url]http://cnsnews.com/blog/dan-gainor/lefty-sirota-we-are-incinerating-planetbecause-too-many-us-eat-cheeseburgers[/url])

 8*


Sounds like just another loony liberal, MN.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on May 05, 2013, 08:28:07 AM
Sounds like just another loony liberal, MN.

Doesn't it seem like some causes try to use fear to push agendas?

I have read that cows do have high methane emissions.

Kind of like me after I eat Mexican or White Castle.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: BigRedDog on May 05, 2013, 09:09:14 AM
Doesn't it seem like some causes try to use fear to push agendas?

I have read that cows do have high methane emissions.

Kind of like me after I eat Mexican or White Castle.


It's National Hamburger Month at White Castle in May!!!

We got a coupon in the mail yesterday but this is even a better deal:

http://cravernation.whitecastle.com/Sliderbration?gclid=CPCt2ZKE_7YCFQqi4AodkjUAYg (http://cravernation.whitecastle.com/Sliderbration?gclid=CPCt2ZKE_7YCFQqi4AodkjUAYg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on May 05, 2013, 10:03:50 AM
It's National Hamburger Month at White Castle in May!!!

We got a coupon in the mail yesterday but this is even a better deal:

[url]http://cravernation.whitecastle.com/Sliderbration?gclid=CPCt2ZKE_7YCFQqi4AodkjUAYg[/url] ([url]http://cravernation.whitecastle.com/Sliderbration?gclid=CPCt2ZKE_7YCFQqi4AodkjUAYg[/url])


LOL!  Imagine the Global Warming this event is going to cause!

Thanks for the link!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: BigRedDog on May 05, 2013, 10:23:18 AM
LOL!  Imagine the Global Warming this event is going to cause!

Thanks for the link!

I'm sure Al Gore will be protesting somewhere!!!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 20, 2013, 12:53:22 PM
It's Beach Time ... In Alaska, Where Heat Wave Breaks Records

Taking advantage of an intense heat wave that broke long-standing records yesterday, residents of Anchorage, Alaska, headed to the beach at Goose Lake.

As the Anchorage Daily News reports, the National Weather Service recorded a high temperature of 81 degrees in the city, beating the previous record of 80 degrees set in June of 1926.

The AP reports that in other spots, it got in even hotter:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/19/193483081/its-beach-time-in-alaska-where-heat-wave-breaks-records
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 20, 2013, 05:47:38 PM
What was the cause of Global Warming in 1926?

Can someone help me with that one?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on June 21, 2013, 08:03:50 AM
The central and eastern United States are not the only areas experiencing a colder-than-average spring. Alaska is also hanging on to winter's chill and snow.
The five-week period from April 3 to May 7 was the coldest in 109 years of record keeping at Fairbanks, Alaska, according to the National Weather Service (NWS).
Temperatures during this period averaged only 19.9 degrees and broke the old record for the same stretch of days set in 1924.

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/alaska-experiencing-a-cold-spr/12041665


Huh.  Must be an ice age coming.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on June 21, 2013, 10:39:37 AM
LOL... Global warming is GLOBAL, Alaska heat and cold is climate or regional.

What global warming does is change climate and make climate events more extreme.  Bigger droughts, more flooding, stronger storms etc.  One only needs to look and the increase of extremes is fact.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 21, 2013, 03:57:49 PM
LOL... Global warming is GLOBAL, Alaska heat and cold is climate or regional.

What global warming does is change climate and make climate events more extreme.  Bigger droughts, more flooding, stronger storms etc.  One only needs to look and the increase of extremes is fact.

I don't know.

There were extreme climate shifts on the planet before man kind became a factor.

Perhaps some external force influences our planet?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on June 21, 2013, 10:52:25 PM
I don't know.

There were extreme climate shifts on the planet before man kind became a factor.

Perhaps some external force influences our planet?
what.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on June 21, 2013, 11:40:50 PM
what.

I assume that was a question.

If so, how about the sun?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 22, 2013, 08:08:08 AM
what.

The Sun would be a leading candidate.

Have you ever heard of Solar Flares?

Have you ever checked out how much energy one of those sends towards this planet?

Now, I am not sure of much, but I am pretty sure that nothing anyone does on this planet can prevent a solar flare from occurring.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on June 22, 2013, 09:12:48 AM
The sun has been around for a few years, maybe a few hundred million of them.  Kind of odd to say it is different only in the last 100.  However, scientists have measured the sun and it has been in a very slight cool since 1978.

Sunspots are short in duration.  They also are cyclical of 11 years and a specific place on the sun.   Also, something that has been around for a few hundred million years. 

So weak a try to almost not bother answering
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 22, 2013, 09:21:26 AM
The sun has been around for a few years, maybe a few hundred million of them.  Kind of odd to say it is different only in the last 100.  However, scientists have measured the sun and it has been in a very slight cool since 1978.

Sunspots are short in duration.  They also are cyclical of 11 years and a specific place on the sun.   Also, something that has been around for a few hundred million years. 

So weak a try to almost not bother answering

Where did I say anything about 100 years?

Answer:  I didn't. 

That seems like a familiar game does it not?

Face it Duck.  Global Warming was made up to make rich people richer, and some gullible individuals are dumb enough to fall for it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on June 22, 2013, 10:31:12 AM
Where did I say anything about 100 years?

Answer:  I didn't. 

That seems like a familiar game does it not?

Face it Duck.  Global Warming was made up to make rich people richer, and some gullible individuals are dumb enough to fall for it.
Clearly I said 100 years.  If nothing has changed then  there is no warming that scientists can attest is factual.  Pick a different number if you want.


You didn't counter that the sun has been in existence for many millennia with the same sun spot activity without the current global warming.  It is also scientifically shown that the sun  has been in a slight cooling trend since 1978. 

Global warming is fact, scientifically verifiable.  The question is not the warming, but cause. Saying the sun has warmed when it has been documented to be slightly cooler is silly.  To claim sun spots are the cause when they have been similar every 11 years since before man is also difficult to digest.

My guess is a fifth grader could make up a better argument than this one.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 22, 2013, 11:19:19 AM
My guess is a fifth grader could make up a better argument than this one.

And a fifth grader is closer in your level of intellect too.

I suggest you seek out fifth graders to talk to.

I guess we read different journals.  All I have been reading this year is how sunspot / solar flare activity is high at this time.

Of course I read journals with long scientific words......
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on June 22, 2013, 11:47:24 AM
And a fifth grader is closer in your level of intellect too.

I suggest you seek out fifth graders to talk to.

I guess we read different journals.  All I have been reading this year is how sunspot / solar flare activity is high at this time.

Of course I read journals with long scientific words......

Okay,  no problem.  A more intelligent conversation with them will be refreshing after this.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 22, 2013, 11:52:06 AM
Okay,  no problem.  A more intelligent conversation with them will be refreshing after this.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on June 24, 2013, 07:21:08 AM

Now, I am not sure of much, but I am pretty sure that nothing anyone does on this planet can prevent a solar flare from occurring.

I'll betcha His Royal Highness Obama can do it.

He can do anything.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 24, 2013, 07:24:51 AM
I'll betcha His Royal Highness Obama can do it.

He can do anything.

True that.

Didn't he promise to keep the ocean levels from rising during the '08 campaign?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on June 24, 2013, 07:28:22 AM
Yes he did.

Maybe he wants to be famous.  You know, like Moses, when he parted the Red Sea.

Must be nice to be able to control the oceans.  He's my heeeeeero!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 27, 2013, 05:21:04 AM
Obama's climate change speech framed to cover for Keystone approval

Obama Promises to Go Over GOP Heads for Climate Change

"Barack Obama has taken an historic step forward in confronting climate change, asserting his power as US president to cut carbon pollution and protect future generations from catastrophic global warming.

In a speech on Tuesday at Georgetown University, delivered outdoors on a sweltering hot day, Obama went further than any previous US president in outlining a comprehensive strategy for dealing with climate change."*

Obama has made a pledge to help fight global warming, even if it means going over the heads of Republican members of Congress to do it. He's promised new rules for pollution and power plants, to the anger of Republicans like Mitch McConnell. The question is...will he actually follow through?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vD6ZqtvGxw

=============

Pres. Obama Unveils Sweeping Climate Change Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVka6PrMxE0
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 27, 2013, 07:24:04 AM
Obama has made a pledge to help fight global warming, even if it means going over the heads of Republican members of Congress to do it. He's promised new rules for pollution and power plants, to the anger of Republicans like Mitch McConnell. The question is...will he actually follow through?

Don't forget the anger from the Democrats from WV and PE.  There is Bi-Partisan anger on this issue.

Also - don't forget if Obama does this via a decree from his dictatorial powers it is once again proving our constitution is DEAD.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 30, 2013, 05:50:45 PM
Why House GOP Can't Stop Pres. Obama's Climate-Change Plans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99kNzcJkw_c
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 30, 2013, 07:16:00 PM
What a surprise.  A clip from MSNBC.  Funny that some believe the stuff they put out.

The reason the GOP won't be able to stop Obama is Obama has no regard for the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.

The only thing the House could do is Impeach him, but then the Senate would just give him a pass so what is the use?

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on June 30, 2013, 07:16:35 PM
What a surprise.  A clip from MSNBC.  Funny that some believe the stuff they put out.

The reason the GOP won't be able to stop Obama is Obama has no regard for the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.

The only thing the House could do is Impeach him, but then the Senate would just give him a pass so what is the use?

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 30, 2013, 10:20:26 PM
What a surprise.  A clip from MSNBC.  Funny that some believe the stuff they put out.

The reason the GOP won't be able to stop Obama is Obama has no regard for the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.

The only thing the House could do is Impeach him, but then the Senate would just give him a pass so what is the use?
What a surprise.  A clip from MSNBC.  Funny that some believe the stuff they put out.

The reason the GOP won't be able to stop Obama is Obama has no regard for the US Constitution that he swore to uphold.

The only thing the House could do is Impeach him, but then the Senate would just give him a pass so what is the use?
Guess your panties are in such a twist that it made you stutter.

The clip was from Morning Joe....a Republican! The only type sheep like you will listen to.

You couldn't last the measly less than 2 minutes it would've taken to learn something?

In short, the video said there's nothing he can do with Congress to get his agenda through so he's going to use the powers of the Executive Authority, basically reinterpreting the clean air act to start to regulate emissions. House Republicans admit there's nothing they can do since Obama isn't asking Congress for anything.

Quote
Republican lawmakers may be irate over President Barack Obama’s climate change plans, but there may be little that Congress can do to stop the push for new landmark Environmental Protection Agency rules to cut emissions from power plants.

Since the previous Congress, House Republicans have exercised their majority power to pass measures calling for expanded oil and gas production, restricting EPA and cancelling other Obama environmental and energy initiatives.
[url]http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/obama-climate-plan-republican-options-93394.html[/url]


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on July 01, 2013, 12:14:34 PM
I'd like a little climate change.  I'm tired of all these rainy days!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: BigRedDog on July 01, 2013, 12:19:14 PM
I'd like a little climate change.  I'm tired of all these rainy days!


I think Karen Carpenter felt the same way a 'few' years back eriemermaid ;) ;) ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFoQxjgbrs
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on July 01, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Ahhh, thanks for the reminder!  What a voice!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on July 01, 2013, 12:29:14 PM
As I sat with a cold stella overlooking lake Erie this weekend, I tipped my bottle to the sun in a salute to global warming which made our great lake possible.

Op uw gezondheid !!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Dan Hamilton on August 16, 2013, 08:25:02 AM
If global warming is real, then the government would need to intervene to fix it, but we don’t like government intervention. Therefore, global warming cannot be real.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 16, 2013, 08:52:31 AM
If global warming is real, then the government would need to intervene to fix it, but we don’t like government intervention. Therefore, global warming cannot be real.

Even if there is Global Warming who says it is "man made" and who says it can be "fixed?"

You are making a bunch of assumptions in your statement.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: eriemermaid on August 16, 2013, 07:25:37 PM
As I sat with a cold stella overlooking lake Erie this weekend, I tipped my bottle to the sun in a salute to global warming which made our great lake possible.

Op uw gezondheid !!

If you would have been a little nicer to Stella, she wouldn't have been so cold! LOL
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 17, 2013, 01:50:22 PM
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/ae22ee8230d78759c1fe53a16c1fdbca/tumblr_mqnrjupiVG1svgndto1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on August 17, 2013, 01:52:18 PM
Was that cartoon from China?

You know the place that makes most of the stuff we buy?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 17, 2013, 03:30:14 PM
Was that cartoon from China?

You know the place that makes most of the stuff we buy?
LOL...so that's YOUR take on what the author was trying to say??

Somehow you missed the deforestation and man-made pollution...which is a Worldwide problem...but I wonder why you chose China since the characters depicted don't resemble Chinese at all.

Guess you just needed another target to hate.

Or maybe you were just playing the look over there game.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 17, 2013, 03:33:01 PM
Small business owners support Obama’s clean energy and environmental policies, poll shows
Most small business owners support some of the climate control and clean energy plans outlined this week by the Obama administration, according to a poll released Thursday.

More than three-fourths (79 percent) of small employers think the the government should set a national goal to increase energy efficiency by half over the next decade, and nearly twice as many believe government incentives for clean energy innovation should be a high or top priority than believe they should be a low or non-priority.

The results are part of a report released by the American Sustainable Business Council, a business advocacy and research organization. David Levine, the group’s chief executive, noted that most of the responses did not vary based on respondents’ political persuasions.

“Small business owners across the country and across the political spectrum believe that clean energy makes sense not only for the environment, but it makes good business sense, too,” Levine said in an interview. “There’s a recognition that these clean energy policies really are better for their financial bottom lines.”

During a speech in Washington on Tuesday, Obama announced several ambitious proposals aimed at reversing recent climate changes and making the country more self-sufficient. Most notably, he ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to limit carbon dioxide emissions for coal- and gas-powered utilities by 2015.

“I refuse to condemn your generation and future generations to a planet that’s beyond fixing,” Obama told students during the event at Georgetown University.

Small business owners support that objective, too. Nearly two-thirds think the EPA should cap emissions in existing power plants, including 86 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans.

More than half of employers believe the government should also encourage banks to consider environmental criteria when evaluating loan applications and investment opportunities, according to the poll, which was based on 515 responses from employers with fewer than 100 employees. Sixty-three percent support a government mandate that would require 20 percent of electricity to be generated from sustainable energy sources.

It’s a slightly surprising stance from a group that is often considered purely anti-regulations and anti-government involvement, but one small business owner noted that these rules would mainly affect large energy and electricity producers, not firms on Main Street.

Susan Labandibar, president of Tech Networks of Boston in South Boston, Mass., added that devastation from recent natural disasters, including Hurricane Sandy and the twisters in the Midwest, has probably prompted some small employers to take climate shifts more seriously.

“Small businesses are uniquely vulnerable to severe weather events, and there has been a huge amount of disruption from some of these storms,” Labandibar said, noting that her own firm was hit hard by Sandy.

Meanwhile, Levine says the overarching “businesses-hate-regulations” notion has been fueled by policy discussions that have more to do with political sparring than reviving the economy.

“This shows that, when you ask some of these questions outside of the political arena, you get a different take than what you hear in Congress,” he said. “We need to change the dialogue in Washington, and get away from party-line rhetoric and talk more about what’s actually good for business and what’s actually good for the economy.”
http://congress.org/2013/06/28/small-business-owners-support-obamas-clean-energy-and-environmental-policies-poll-shows/

=============

Obama climate plan poll shows support

http://www.wyomingbusinessreport.com/article.asp?id=65246
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 17, 2013, 03:39:19 PM
'Total Fraud': The Republican Allure of Climate Change Denialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zEkHvdF5ag

===========

Climate Change: Republican Global Warming Denialists' Outrageous Reasoning
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6ZREw2Rp_c

===========

Each Degree of Warming Will Raise Sea Levels 7.5 Feet
http://ens-newswire.com/2013/07/15/each-degree-of-warming-will-raise-sea-levels-7-5-feet/

==========

Climate change impacts Maine lobster population
http://www.necn.com/07/02/13/Climate-change-impacts-Maine-lobster-pop/landing.html?blockID=845449&feedID=11106

=========

Can You Believe In Global Warming AND God?
"Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh chastised Secretary of State John Kerry during Monday's show for having the audacity to believe in God and climate change at the same time.

Limbaugh evidently took issue with recent comments Secretary Kerry made while speaking before the State Department's Office of Faith-Based Community Initiatives, particularly his assertion that climate change was "a challenge to our responsibilities as the guardians--safe guarders of God's creation."*

Is it possible to be religious and also stand with the 97% of scientists who believe in man-made climate change? Rush Limbaugh says, "No!" with a ridiculously misguided, Freudian rant as to why the two beliefs couldn't possibly coexist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nv-n26GHZo
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 17, 2013, 09:56:21 PM
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/B/-/6/Look-Down.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 18, 2013, 01:49:10 AM
Does Watching Fox News Make You 13% Dumber?

"Now that science has more or less agreed that human-caused climate change is happening, some are devoting their efforts to figuring out how it's possible that people can remain skeptics. Plenty has been written about the corrupting influence of conservative media, but a new study from researchers at the University of Arizona, George Mason, American University and Yale looks more closely at exactly how such programs manage to fuel their audiences' denial."*

According to a recent study, Fox News viewers do not only misunderstand science, but they also distrust it. Why is Fox News pushing an anti-science, anti-global warming agenda despite the fact that 97% of scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening? Who will suffer most from this? This is your brain on Fox News.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aukTgJrxXEs

========

Cuss warning:

‘Remember who lied to you’

Cenk Uygur and “The Young Turks” panelists Cara Santa Maria, Ana Kasparian and Jayar Jackson talk about the latest extreme weather and why public support for addressing climate change isn’t getting the job done. “The problem is, our democracy is gone,” Cenk says. “As we saw on gun control, you could have over 90 percent saying, ‘I want background checks’ and the Senate’s going to say, ‘Suck it. I don’t care.’” Cenk blames the media as well as Congress for perpetuating climate change denial. “Remember who lied to you,” he concludes. “It was those sons of bitches who lied to you for profit — and then we have to deal with the consequences, all of us together.”

http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/cenk-on-climate-change-remember-who-lied-to-you
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 21, 2013, 05:21:36 PM
"Half of all the Earth" Moved Due To This Massive Global Warming Side Effect

"If melting ice caps trigger rapid sea level rise, the strain that the edges of continents could experience might set off underwater landslides, new research suggests. These underwater avalanches, which can happen when underwater slopes get hit by earthquakes or otherwise have too much weight loaded onto them, can generate dangerous tsunamis."

"Half of all the Earth" Moved Due To This Massive Global Warming Side Effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgmHAB8nGbo#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on August 23, 2013, 06:23:19 PM
"Half of all the Earth" Moved Due To This Massive Global Warming Side Effect

"If melting ice caps trigger rapid sea level rise, the strain that the edges of continents could experience might set off underwater landslides, new research suggests. These underwater avalanches, which can happen when underwater slopes get hit by earthquakes or otherwise have too much weight loaded onto them, can generate dangerous tsunamis."

"Half of all the Earth" Moved Due To This Massive Global Warming Side Effect ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgmHAB8nGbo#[/url])



LMFAO!!!!


Dweeb.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on August 24, 2013, 11:23:09 PM
Blinded With Science: The Utter Stupidity of Republicans on Climate Change

Blinded With Science: The Utter Stupidity of Republicans on Climate Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJ0IrBF5N78#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on September 14, 2013, 11:52:46 PM
The veracity of the alarmists have been lowered as well.

Dialing Back the Alarm on Climate Change
A forthcoming report points lowers estimates on global warming

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324549004579067532485712464.html)

Later this month, a long-awaited event that last happened in 2007 will recur. Like a returning comet, it will be taken to portend ominous happenings. I refer to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) "fifth assessment report," part of which will be published on Sept. 27.

There have already been leaks from this 31-page document, which summarizes 1,914 pages of scientific discussion, but thanks to a senior climate scientist, I have had a glimpse of the key prediction at the heart of the document. The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 15, 2013, 08:59:46 AM
The veracity of the alarmists have been lowered as well.

LOL...an unqualified opinion piece from Wall Street to again cast doubt on whether or not scientists are correct about climate change. Well done solidifying which side of the political divide that you reside.

Climate change 'driving spread of crop pests'

Climate change is helping pests and diseases that attack crops to spread around the world, a study suggests.

Researchers from the universities of Exeter and Oxford have found crop pests are moving at an average of two miles (3km) a year.

The team said they were heading towards the north and south poles, and were establishing in areas that were once too cold for them to live in.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23899019 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23899019)


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 15, 2013, 09:13:01 AM
So how many of you believers in Climate change are ready to move into high density housing, give up your cars for public transportation, and make some sacrifices for what you believe?

I think it is time for you to start leading by example.  Put your beliefs into practice.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on September 15, 2013, 09:31:47 AM
Never happen, MN.

Liberals are all "Do as I say, not as I do". 

"GMO's are baaaaaaaaddd!  But we still have to feed a hungry world!!!"

"Global warming!!!  We gotta do SOMETHING!!!!!!  We need green energy!!!!!  You should ride your bike to work every day!!!!!  I'll write a law requiring YOU to do that... Right after I fill my gas tank on my Escalade, so I can get home to my 4,200 square foot air conditioned house."
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Ash Williams on September 15, 2013, 09:52:08 AM
So how many of you believers in Climate change are ready to move into high density housing, give up your cars for public transportation, and make some sacrifices for what you believe?

I think it is time for you to start leading by example.  Put your beliefs into practice.

soon as yer republicans leed by quittin usin goverment

get off ss

done use medicare ur medicaid

done use public roads

done call tha firemen when yer house burns

done call tha police

done go ta skool

done use u s money
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on September 15, 2013, 09:56:32 AM
soon as yer republicans leed by quittin usin goverment

get off ss

done use medicare ur medicaid

done use public roads

done call tha firemen when yer house burns

done call tha police

done go ta skool

done use u s money



What did you say?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on September 15, 2013, 10:12:17 AM
LOL...an unqualified opinion piece from Wall Street to again cast doubt on whether or not scientists are correct about climate change. Well done solidifying which side of the political divide that you reside. 


LOLMAO...

You should really have read the WS article before you determined what it said. 

It was about a leaked report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and how they are revising their  hysteria about global warming.   

You have demonstrated yet again your stereotyping and disregard for facts.

Al Gore predicted the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2013:

And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eyE6rwI7 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html#ixzz2eyE6rwI7)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 15, 2013, 11:04:31 AM
Oh no!  The new ice age is on the way....  just like they were predicting in the 1970s....

Better head to that property in Belize while I still can!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 15, 2013, 11:44:25 AM
LOLMAO...

You should really have read the WS article before you determined what it said. 

It was about a leaked report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and how they are revising their  hysteria about global warming.   

You have demonstrated yet again your stereotyping and disregard for facts.
Try again.
It was a hit piece written by an author with absolutely zero credentials or expertise on the subject. 
Just another Wall Street effort to try to create doubt about climate change.
But don't let facts get in the way of telling your story.  8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 15, 2013, 03:17:31 PM
Scientist / Reporter that says Global Warming is real:  Genius

Scientist / Reporter that says Global Warming is a sham:  Charlatan, Quack, Rightie, Lunatic (Sorry Duck)

Is that accurate?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on September 15, 2013, 03:32:33 PM
I'm not an expert on global warming or cooling, but I can't help but to think the pollutants pumped out over the last 100 years has not had an affect on the air quality inside our little protective sphere, nor is it unthinkable to me that weather patterns and climate are impacted as well.  I think we have done our part here at home to reduce the impacts manufacturing pollutants, but for our every reduction there are counties in the Far East with outputs that offset and most likely exceed where we ever were.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 15, 2013, 03:42:00 PM
I'm not an expert on global warming or cooling, but I can't help but to think the pollutants pumped out over the last 100 years has not had an affect on the air quality inside our little protective sphere, nor is it unthinkable to me that weather patterns and climate are impacted as well.  I think we have done our part here at home to reduce the impacts manufacturing pollutants, but for our every reduction there are counties in the Far East with outputs that offset and most likely exceed where we ever were.

I totally agree.

I would support legislation that you can't import manufactured goods from countries that don't meet the same DEQ and OSHA standards of the US. 

That would bring a TON of jobs home, and help the planet.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 17, 2013, 07:39:49 AM
Scientist / Reporter that says Global Warming is real:  Genius

Scientist / Reporter that says Global Warming is a sham:  Charlatan, Quack, Rightie, Lunatic (Sorry Duck)

Is that accurate?
No, your assessment is inaccurate. A reporter wrote a tailor-made story for the WSJ but it didn't say it wasn't real...only that it's not as bad as predicted.

That unqualified writer just contributed to the Wall Street/Big Business narrative of casting doubt on validity of the assertions of the scientific community concerning climate change.

It's the old who do you believe thing...science or religion.

Sorry...I'll side with science.

I'm not surprised you cannot see the hypocrisy of your dig at duck and then adding that fake sorry.

But then that's the type of person you are.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 17, 2013, 08:34:28 AM
No, your assessment is inaccurate. A reporter wrote a tailor-made story for the WSJ but it didn't say it wasn't real...only that it's not as bad as predicted.

That unqualified writer just contributed to the Wall Street/Big Business narrative of casting doubt on validity of the assertions of the scientific community concerning climate change.

It's the old who do you believe thing...science or religion.

Sorry...I'll side with science.

I'm not surprised you cannot see the hypocrisy of your dig at duck and then adding that fake sorry.

But then that's the type of person you are.

I never said anything about the WSJ.

Did I?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 17, 2013, 09:52:19 AM
Antarctica is Melting from the Bottom Up
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3993/20130916/antarctica-melting-bottom-up.htm (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3993/20130916/antarctica-melting-bottom-up.htm)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2013, 11:32:38 AM
Antarctica is Melting from the Bottom Up
[url]http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3993/20130916/antarctica-melting-bottom-up.htm[/url] ([url]http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/3993/20130916/antarctica-melting-bottom-up.htm[/url])


Oh, since the ice cap at the north pole is now bigger than ever, we need to shift our attention to the south pole.

Got it.   8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 17, 2013, 12:25:53 PM
Never happen, MN.

Liberals are all "Do as I say, not as I do". 

"GMO's are baaaaaaaaddd!  But we still have to feed a hungry world!!!"

"Global warming!!!  We gotta do SOMETHING!!!!!!  We need green energy!!!!!  You should ride your bike to work every day!!!!!  I'll write a law requiring YOU to do that... Right after I fill my gas tank on my Escalade, so I can get home to my 4,200 square foot air conditioned house."
So am I supposed to ignore this one too? Because it wasn't directed at me?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
So am I supposed to ignore this one too? Because it wasn't directed at me?

What the hell are you talking about?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 17, 2013, 12:48:05 PM
What the hell are you talking about?

Quote
Liberals are all "Do as I say, not as I do".

"GMO's are baaaaaaaaddd!  But we still have to feed a hungry world!!!"

As I recall, I was the only one brave enough to debate you in your GMO thread for several pages. One would easily assume that this statement was made towards me.

It seems that the "Fry" is not the only bully around here.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2013, 01:45:25 PM
As I recall, I was the only one brave enough to debate you in your GMO thread for several pages. One would easily assume that this statement was made towards me.

It seems that the "Fry" is not the only bully around here.

Uh, ok, whatever you say, Dan.

Go ahead and assume whatever you want.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on September 17, 2013, 01:47:30 PM
So apparently the "Computer Models", probably along the same lines as the ones who try and predict the weekly weather, got it wrong.  Surprised?


computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong
Leaked report reveals the world is warming at half the rate claimed by IPCC in 2007
Scientists accept their computers 'may have exaggerated'
By DAVID ROSE

PUBLISHED: 16:01 EST, 14 September 2013 | UPDATED: 03:21 EST, 15 September 2013
   

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its story after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years
A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.
The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.
They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.
Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment,  published in 2007.
Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.
The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures  – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
lThey recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.
lThey admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.
lThe IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.
lA forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2fAnyiGlg (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz2fAnyiGlg)
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on September 17, 2013, 01:55:11 PM
Flanders, you bully, you.

Those IPCC dudes at the UN are bullies, too.

ANYBODY with a different opinion from the liberals is a bully these days.


 ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on September 17, 2013, 02:04:48 PM

It seems that the "Fry" is not the only bully around here.

Strange, but our new forum policeman Ash has never cited Fry for bulleeun.   8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 17, 2013, 02:05:29 PM
I know my Bully 2 topic was closed by ADMIN, and I don't want to rehash it here - but MAN do some people appear to WANT to be bullied.

Can't we just have a healthy discussion and debate?

It seems as if some posters are just TRYING to start a fight. 

I for one don't get it.

Let me start.

I think Global Warming has been fully debunked.

Even if there is Climate Change - and I believe the scientific and historical evidence shows there has been in the past.  I believe that from the fossil evidence that shows the Great Lakes were once tropical, and we know that glaciers were in the area once - just drive out to the Irish Hills and you will see evidence of that. 

There also has been records of temperature cycles in the recorded history - I believe a cold snap with terrible winters in the 1800s, the Dust Bowl in the 1930's come to mind.

However - why would anyone think THIS round of the cycle is man-made?

I don't understand how anyone could make that connection - unless they had a political agenda that would be furthered if you could.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on September 17, 2013, 02:08:19 PM
So apparently the "Computer Models", probably along the same lines as the ones who try and predict the weekly weather, got it wrong.  Surprised?

They had to issue a correction because the actual temperatures crashed through the bottom of their prediction range.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Flanders on September 17, 2013, 02:17:39 PM
They had to issue a correction because the actual temperatures crashed through the bottom of their prediction range.

LOL
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Dan Hamilton on September 17, 2013, 02:22:01 PM
I know my Bully 2 topic was closed by ADMIN, and I don't want to rehash it here - but MAN do some people appear to WANT to be bullied.

If you are referring to me, quite the contrary. I just would rather have rational discussion like the rest of your post here, rather than the posts meant solely to agitate others.

Flanders, you bully, you.

Those IPCC dudes at the UN are bullies, too.

ANYBODY with a different opinion from the liberals is a bully these days.


 ;D

Like that one.




As far as the climate change, I will be thankful if the computer modeling was exaggerated. I don't like the idea of having to move north to keep cool or to the south to keep warm.

I'm definitely not a snowbird. :P
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 17, 2013, 02:30:24 PM
If you are referring to me, quite the contrary. I just would rather have rational discussion like the rest of your post here, rather than the posts meant solely to agitate others.

Lets do it!

I hope the models are wrong too - and right now the evidence shows that.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on September 17, 2013, 02:52:51 PM

I think Global Warming has been fully debunked.


I believe in Global Warming and Global Cooling.   

If Global Cooling did not exist then we would still be a molten ball hurling around the sun.   

If Global Warming did not exist then we would still be living in the Ice Age.

I think it is obvious the cause/effect assigned to carbon has been greatly exaggerated.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 17, 2013, 02:56:59 PM
I believe in Global Warming and Global Cooling.   

If Global Cooling did not exist then we would still be a molten ball hurling around the sun.   

If Global Warming did not exist then we would still be living in the Ice Age.

I think it is obvious the cause/effect assigned to carbon has been greatly exaggerated.



You said it much better than I did.

I believe in Global Warming and Global Cooling.

I just don't believe the "man made" portion is significant when you compare outside effects.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 18, 2013, 07:30:41 PM
Strange, but our new forum policeman Ash has never cited Fry for bulleeun.   8*
Sounds like the type of logic you used to convince everybody that I created that new persona for some reason.  8*

Not sure where I saw it but I'm pretty sure Ash included me into the bullying equation on several occasions but you're not one to let facts get in the way of telling those tall tales.  ;)

I know my Bully 2 topic was closed by ADMIN, and I don't want to rehash it here - but MAN do some people appear to WANT to be bullied.
Something about what you've said reminded me of some comments I heard about a rape victim...something about the way she was dressed was responsible for the rape.  8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 18, 2013, 08:46:41 PM
Something about what you've said reminded me of some comments I heard about a rape victim...something about the way she was dressed was responsible for the rape.  8*

I was going to make a witty comeback here, but I have officially decided not to stoop to your level.

Please continue with your usual SPAM.  Have a nice night.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 18, 2013, 10:00:33 PM
SCIENCE IS BEING DESTROYED! Governments Conspire To Control Scientist Through Funding

SCIENCE IS BEING DESTROYED! Governments Conspire To Control Scientist Through Funding (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQrwk1w2Xb8#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on September 20, 2013, 11:17:50 PM
And now it's global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html)

Al Gore wasn't even warm about the disappearance of Arctic ice.

http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/09/al_gore_wasnt_even_warm_about.html (http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2013/09/al_gore_wasnt_even_warm_about.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on September 25, 2013, 10:50:38 PM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc11241920130924091800.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 27, 2013, 07:39:49 AM
Quote
CRATER LAKE — Crater Lake received a record-smashing 8 inches of snow in 24 hours Tuesday into Wednesday, the National Weather Service reported.

More than one month ahead of schedule, the frosty blanket made its earliest appearance since 1986, when snow fell a week earlier on Sept. 18. Before that, the earliest appearance of a winter wonderland at Crater Lake was Sept. 24, 1948.

"It looks like there were sharply higher values of snowfall above 6,000 feet," said meteorologist Shad Keene. "Crater Lake tends to get the brunt of all the precipitation, so the chance of them exceeding a forecast is higher than in most places. It'll really come down."

At elevations 6,000 feet and below, there was anywhere from 1 to 3 inches.

"The higher elevations definitely got more than we expected," Keene said.

The snowfall resulted in the closures of Crater Lake's West Rim Drive, East Rim Drive, North Entrance and Pinnacles Road Wednesday, according to the park's website. The West Entrance and South Entrance off Highway 62, Highway 62's access to the park's headquarters, and park headquarters to the Rim Village remained open.

"It looks like winter," said Marcia McCabe, park spokeswoman. "It's gorgeous. It's absolutely beautiful."

McCabe added that the road closures should be temporary, as temperatures are expected to warm up by the end of the week.

"We're not quite ready to shut them down for a whole season," McCabe said.

Keene said it is surprising to see snow accumulate on the roads, though much of it has since begun to melt.

"The ground is still relatively warm," Keene said. "Just seeing the snow accumulate on the roads was surprising that high in our area."

Snow is expected to continue falling at elevations 5,000 feet and above into as late as today.

"You could certainly see several (more) inches," Keene said.

That means some more rainfall for the Rogue Valley today and possibly early Friday, but a sunny weekend is predicted to reverse the trend, with temperatures rising back into the low- to mid-70s for the valley floor, and the low 50s for Crater Lake.


http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130926/NEWS/309260314 (http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130926/NEWS/309260314)

More proof of Climate Change!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on September 27, 2013, 09:06:49 AM
Quote
Global warming is "unequivocal" and it is "extremely likely" that humans are the primary contributors to this warming, according to a report released Friday morning in Stockholm by the U.N.-created Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world's top climate research group.

"Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes," the report says.

The report says that it is now more certain than ever that "human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming" since the 1950s.

The report says that "each of the last three decades has been successively warmer at the Earth's surface than any preceding decade since 1850" and that in "the Northern Hemisphere, 1983–2012, was likely the warmest 30-year period of the last 1400 years."

As for the supposed "pause" in global warming since 1998, the report says that this may be due to changing climate models and that a fuller understanding of this pattern requires further study.

"Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends," the report says.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/27/global-warming-report-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/2878853/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/09/27/global-warming-report-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change/2878853/)

So let me get this straight.

We must ignore the current trend because it is short term, but the last short term trend we must pay attention to.

Really?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 28, 2013, 10:32:54 AM
Climate scientists want urgent action
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-scientists-want-urgent-action-20130926-2ugzr.html (http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-scientists-want-urgent-action-20130926-2ugzr.html)

====

U.N. Scientist 95% Certain Climate Change Is Man Made

U.N. Scientist 95% Certain Climate Change Is Man Made (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hb0dFie-c8#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on September 28, 2013, 12:40:44 PM
Global Warming Denial 2.0: Republicans Now Denying Existence of 'Climate' Itself!

Global Warming Denial 2.0: Republicans Now Denying Existence of 'Climate' Itself! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6e_de7wSCU#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on October 07, 2013, 07:24:21 AM
Quote
The musician-turned-activist reckons the world will end in 2030 - leading to the extinction of humankind.

Sir Bob, 61, based his miserable prediction on the effects of climate change.

“The world can decide in a fit of madness to kill itself," he told a group of youngsters at a summit in Johannesburg, South Africa.

“We may not get to 2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently”
Sir Bob Geldof
The former Boomtown Rats singer also warned "the next war will not be a World War One or a World War Two, it will be the end."

He added: "We may not get to 2030. We need to address the problem of climate change urgently."

Sir Bob is best-known for his attempts in helping to fight famine in Africa, staging Live Aid at Wembley Stadium in 1985.

He finished his speech by apologising for being "bloody miserable", but added: "just get on with it".


http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/342876/Sir-Bob-Geldof-All-humans-will-die-before-2030 (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/342876/Sir-Bob-Geldof-All-humans-will-die-before-2030)

2030..........

Guess I can reduce how much I thought I needed to retire!

 ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on October 07, 2013, 10:44:21 AM
Well I for one welcome this outcome of global warming  ;D

(http://www.global-warming-info.com/Global-Warming-Proof-Graphic.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on October 07, 2013, 12:11:21 PM
The pic cut 2013 cut off of it......right above it would have been just two clothes pins.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on October 07, 2013, 12:44:46 PM
The pic cut 2013 cut off of it......right above it would have been just two clothes pins.
Actually a paint brush would be hanging from the line,
as I've seen some pretty nice "painted" on clothing...   
(unable to post those pics however)  ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on October 09, 2013, 08:22:51 AM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb1001cd20130930034320.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on November 16, 2013, 03:17:02 PM
Climate deniers can't deny new record storms

...observes that the storm records set in the past year and reports the latest news from the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFhRr-MT5U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFhRr-MT5U#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on November 17, 2013, 12:49:59 AM
Climate deniers can't deny new record storms

...observes that the storm records set in the past year and reports the latest news from the devastation of Typhoon Haiyan.

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFhRr-MT5U]www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFhRr-MT5U[/url] ([url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEFhRr-MT5U#[/url])


Nothing cyclical here eh?

Well at least the EPA under Obama has decided global warming and using green energy fuels is not something to continue...   they are reversing the course and going back to less ethanol in our gasoline.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on November 18, 2013, 05:52:16 PM
It cracks me up....

One hot summer - global warming.

One storm - Climate change.

A summer without a significant hurricane.....  Silence.

Only talk about it if it fits your narrative.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on November 19, 2013, 06:05:27 AM
Oh, but the LACK OF hurricanes was caused by global warming, MN!!!

Get with the program, will ya?   ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on November 19, 2013, 06:02:58 PM
You won't have to worry about climate change anymore. Japan is going to take care of everyone.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=040_1384817880 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=040_1384817880)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on November 20, 2013, 06:10:53 PM
Oh, but the LACK OF hurricanes was caused by global warming, MN!!!

Get with the program, will ya?   ;D

How silly of me.

Of course everything is caused by global warming.

No matter how something is trending the answer is global warming.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on December 14, 2013, 07:20:44 PM
Quote
If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.

A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.

The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.


“Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”

Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3°C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”

According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”

For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air — primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.

Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools



Read more: [url]http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz2nUwuac8R[/url] ([url]http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/13/study-earth-was-warmer-in-roman-medieval-times/#ixzz2nUwuac8R[/url])


Uh oh.....

Roman ages were before the industrial revolution or the internal combustion engine.

How could it have been hotter then if man is the cause of climate change?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on December 14, 2013, 07:23:45 PM
Could it be the Sun DOES have something to do with temperatures on the Planet Earth?

 8*

Quote
SAN FRANCISCO — The sun's current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.

Our star is now at "solar maximum," the peak phase of its 11-year activity cycle. But this solar max is weak, and the overall current cycle, known as Solar Cycle 24, conjures up comparisons to the famously feeble Solar Cycle 14 in the early 1900s, researchers said.

"None of us alive have ever seen such a weak cycle. So we will learn something," Leif Svalgaard of Stanford University told reporters here today (Dec. 11) at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union. [Solar Max: Amazing Sun Storm Photos of 2013]


http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html (http://www.space.com/23934-weak-solar-cycle-space-weather.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: toobad on December 14, 2013, 08:30:28 PM
No way does the sun have anything to do with temperatures on the earth, only Al Gore and his elite socialist that bought massive stock in green companies do.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on December 15, 2013, 03:51:06 AM
Why is the climate change crowd so stupid?

They marketed a bogus product: "Global Warming"

Thier product got debunked, not by "research" but that stupid "facts and reality" thingy.

Global Warming folks missed the Golden opportunity... they marketed a bogus theory with GREAT SUCCESS, and now global temps are dropping because of awareness and the actions taken because of it.  CLAIM VICTORY AND MOVE ON!!!!!!  But hell it worked once, why not keep it going and just rebrand?  Which is exactly what they have done!!!

Why wouldn't the "Climate Change" crowd stop when all their efforts (seemingly) made a difference?  I am guessing money figures in to the answer to that question.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on December 22, 2013, 11:09:39 AM
Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation

Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?
http://skepticalscience.com/ (http://skepticalscience.com/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on December 22, 2013, 11:28:39 AM
What we don't see is the basis for the "research" -

Who's grant, and what was the purpose of the grant...

Yes, its sad but politics even creeps into scientific research
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on December 22, 2013, 12:07:47 PM
What we don't see is the basis for the "research" -

Who's grant, and what was the purpose of the grant...

Yes, its sad but politics even creeps into scientific research

It isn't scientific research when money is given with the sole purpose of proving a theorem is correct.

Follow the money.  Who is profiting from it?  Many have made MILLIONS off of Global Warming.

Which Conservative was so evil to profit from Global Warming?  Al Gore!

Give me a freaking break.....  I refuse to change my lifestyle at the bequest of a limousine jetset liberal who is getting rich off of bogus "science."
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on December 25, 2013, 11:11:01 AM
It's like religion...neither side can prove anything absolutely.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on December 27, 2013, 08:59:03 AM
I'm sure even though they got stuck in 10' of ice - they will come up with something in their report on the warming of the area... 

Climate change as a science has now come down to a "Tourist" event?

======================================================
(CNN) -- Sprits were high Friday aboard a research vessel trapped in Antarctic sea ice as a Chinese icebreaker slowly made its way toward the ship carrying 74 crew members, scientists and tourists on a research mission to study the effects of climate change.

"The vessel is fine, it's safe and everyone on board is very well," expedition leader Chris Turney, a professor of climate change at University of New South Wales in Australia told CNN's "New Day" on Friday. "Morale is really high."

The MV Akademik Shokalskiy got stuck in the ice Monday night -- 15 days after setting out on the second leg of its research trip.

According to Turney, the ship is surrounded by ice up to nearly 10 feet (3 meters) thick some and about 100 nautical miles east of the French base Dumont D'Urville, about 1,500 nautical miles south of Hobart, Tasmania.

On Christmas morning, the ship sent a satellite distress signal after conditions failed to clear.
 
The Chinese icebreaker Snow Dragon as well as the French vessel Astrolabe and an Australian ship, the Aurora Australis, were heading through heavy ice toward the stuck ship.

Two of the ships are expected to arrive late Friday. The Chinese vessel is likely to arrive first, followed by the French ship. The Australian ship Aurora Australis is expected to arrive later.

The Chinese ship -- which China's State Oceanic Administration said sailed through an intense cyclone to reach the Akademik Shokalskiy sooner -- is moving slowly because of the thick ice, Capt. Wang Jianzhong told CNN by phone.

The captain said he's worried the extreme weather could cause his vessel to get stuck also. But even so, the French ship could help rescue it, he said. If the French also get trapped, they would call for more help.

The crew had a "great Christmas" despite their situation, Turney told CNN earlier. He said crew members have used the delay to get more work done.

"We've just kept the team busy," he said.

The expedition is trying to update scientific measurements taken by an Australian expedition led by Douglas Mawson that set out in 1911.

The expedition to gauge the effects of climate change on the region began November 27. The second, and current leg of the trip, started December 8 and was scheduled to conclude with a return to New Zealand on January 4.

Turney said the ship should still be back in New Zealand on time.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/ (http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/27/world/antarctica-ship-stuck/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on December 27, 2013, 09:11:30 AM
Liberals are funny.

Perhaps they would have had more success if they used snow machines or trucks, instead of a boat, to cross ice TEN FEET THICK. 

But with all the global warming, and the south pole melting and all, they probably were hoping for balmy weather.

Maybe the thick ice was caused by global warming.  Somehow.

Yeah, that's it.   8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on December 27, 2013, 11:06:11 AM
Everything is caused by Global Warming.

More Snow - Global Warming.

Less Snow - Global Warming.

Warmer Temps - Global Warming.

Colder Temps - Global Warming.

Global Warming explains all trends or non-trends in the weather.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on December 27, 2013, 12:06:24 PM
Hey, maybe the 'booms' are global farting.....
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on December 27, 2013, 04:14:56 PM
Vaginal?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on December 27, 2013, 04:16:33 PM
I heard you can smoke a cigar with your vagina.....
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on December 27, 2013, 04:19:12 PM
Haven't had that surgery, but if I do I don't think a cigar would be the first thing to go in it!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on December 27, 2013, 05:44:11 PM
Haven't had that surgery, but if I do I don't think a cigar would be the first thing to go in it!

Fuzz - you have clearly put more thought into that surgery than I ever have!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on December 27, 2013, 06:51:47 PM
No, haven't given it much thought at all actually....that was just the first thing that came to my naturally curious mind after you brought it up.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 09:15:51 AM
Who Funds Climate Change Deniers?

"A study by Drexel University has identified the major sources of funding for climate change denial. Some of the names are all too familiar such as the Koch and Scaife families while some have done their best to remain obscure and have yet to get noticed."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNV4qiuKU4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcNV4qiuKU4#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 09:17:21 AM
Koch Bros Behind Solar Power Fines

"According to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative network better known as ALEC, our solar panels make us "free riders." What?

Yes, according to ALEC, an organization that specializes in getting the right-wing agenda written into state laws, people like me who invest in energy-efficiency and shrinking our carbon footprints ought to be penalized.

Why does ALEC want us punished? Since it's bankrolled by, among others, the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, it's hard not to surmise that they're worried about a threat to fossil fuels businesses. Koch Industries' operations include refineries, oil and natural gas pipelines, and petrochemicals."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3SDcOZLksk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3SDcOZLksk#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 02, 2014, 09:39:19 AM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/Foden20140101-Global%20Warm20140101111909.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 09:45:39 AM
How technology can halt climate change

What will it take to fix global warming? Scientists say the world, within a few decades, will need to switch to energy that doesn't emit greenhouse gases. Even the optimists agree, it won't be easy.

In the 1890s, New York City was swamped — not by a storm but something smellier, horse manure.

Horses, the primary mode of transportation, dropped more than a million pounds each day, causing a sanitation crisis. No one found a fix, and some estimated the streets would eventually be buried several feet deep.

Then, "shift happened," says Harvard chemist Daniel Nocera. The automobile arrived, and almost overnight, it replaced horses and cleaned up the streets. Hailed as an environmental savior, it solved a seemingly insurmountable problem.

What a difference a century makes. Cars are now known contributors to the modern-day scourge of climate change. Their heat-trapping emissions have helped warm the planet beyond its natural variability. So sea levels have risen, and drought, heat waves and hurricanes have intensified — as USA TODAY explored in a year-long series, "Weathering the Change."

As in the 1890s, society is once again looking for the Next Big Fix — whether high-altitude wind kites, "plug and play" nuclear reactors, giant synthetic trees to absorb carbon dioxide or sulfate aerosols to cool the planet. Next week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas, two concepts will be on display: Toyota's hydrogen fuel-cell car, which emits no greenhouse gases, and Ford's hybrid, powered partly by renewable energy.

Yet will technology deliver this time? Or will inertia push the planet, already struggling with higher temperatures, to a cataclysmic breaking point?

"I'm totally optimistic," says Nocera, citing a plethora of technological advances, including his own "artificial leaf" for producing hydrogen fuel. "All over the world these things are happening." He says projections are based on current conditions but innovation can shift the paradigm, adding: "That's what discovery can do.

Even optimists agree it won't be easy. "No amount of new technology will magically solve the climate problem or even help much," unless there's broad consensus on the need for urgent action, says Harvard physicist David Keith.

In Washington, D.C., where climate change remains politically divisive, action is unlikely. Congress has rebuffed a tax on carbon emissions, which Keith and other climate scientists say would be the best way to spur clean-energy innovation. Opponents such as the American Petroleum Institute say the tax could boost energy prices and hurt the U.S. economy.

Global leaders have also made little progress in agreeing to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which continue to increase as rapidly developing nations such as India and China use coal to power economic growth.

Still, change is bubbling up. Dozens of states now require that a portion of their electricity come from renewable sources. In October, California became the first to require its utilities to install energy-storage equipment — expected to boost technologies such as batteries that can be used when the sun doesn't shine or the wind doesn't blow. China has increased its use of solar power to reduce the smog blanketing its major cities.

"The good news: We already know how to do a lot," says Jane Long, who's leading the California Council on Science and Technology's study on how the state can meet its pledge to slash emissions 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Even so, she says breakthrough technologies, requiring a public and private partnership, will be needed to make fuels with nearly zero emissions.

There's not a lot of time to make changes, says climate scientist David Archer of the University of Chicago. He says research suggests dire changes could occur if the Earth warms 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century.

"We're halfway there," Archer says, adding the planet could reach that mark as soon as 2040 if carbon emissions continue their current climb. "This is just the fire alarm. This is not the fire," he says, adding it will become costlier to cut emissions the closer the flames come.

"It's important to recognize we don't know everything about climate change," Christopher Field told reporters last December at MIT's climate "boot camp." Yet Field, a senior fellow at Stanford University and co-author of research by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said enough is known to help society manage the risks and make smart investments.

The 19th-century horse-manure crisis suggests some solutions may beget new problems, says Eric Morris, an urban planning professor at Clemson University who studied that malodorous chapter of history. But he says it also offers another lesson: "Never discount the power of human ingenuity."

Here are six technologies — some old, some new — that might stem the worrisome warming trend:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/climate-change-technologies/4041931/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/climate-change-technologies/4041931/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 09:47:24 AM
Cuss warning:

Shocking Percentage Of Americans Don't Trust Scientists

"In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, only 36 percent of Americans reported having "a lot" of trust that information they get from scientists is accurate and reliable. Fifty-one percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don't trust it at all."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7I6gJQbuA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT7I6gJQbuA#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on January 02, 2014, 10:22:02 AM
I am generally skeptical about any scientific reports that are funded by the government.....which is the case a lot nowadays.  I really wish reports would include how the study was financed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: blue2 on January 02, 2014, 10:34:50 AM
I tend to believe what Joe Bastardi has to say over all the rest of them.  He is one that believes government forecasts are almost worthless.  Gee imagine that.  Something from the government that is worthless.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on January 02, 2014, 10:48:40 AM
Kind of my point, blue.

I've never published, nor know of anyone that did a scientific study funded by the government.  My guess is that before the final version was released to the public that it would first have to be screened by a government official and subject to editing.

Not sure, and therefore my skepticism of a lot of scientific studies funded by DC.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 02, 2014, 11:52:25 AM
Kind of my point, blue.

I've never published, nor know of anyone that did a scientific study funded by the government.  My guess is that before the final version was released to the public that it would first have to be screened by a government official and subject to editing.

Not sure, and therefore my skepticism of a lot of scientific studies funded by DC.

+1.

The validity of any study funded in part or whole by any politican leaning/prior agenda organization is basically worthless as far as unbiased opinions.

Like polls, they can be construed to fit the proposed model.

I see we are in the midst of 'global warming' today, right here.  It's 10 and snowing like all get out.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 02, 2014, 12:08:30 PM
I see we are in the midst of 'global warming' today, right here.  It's 10 and snowing like all get out.

Which is why they adjusted "global warming" terminology to "climate change" and then declared the weather can go in either direction.

They can't let anything like facts stop their agenda.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 01:00:47 PM
Again I find it funny when cons disregard science in favor of something as simplistic as a snowy or cold day...something that's in their face...yet aren't skeptical of theism.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 01:39:28 PM
The 'Koch Brothers' Now Funding & 'Polluting' Florida State University

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYosc-UyNQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYosc-UyNQ#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 01:40:37 PM
Americans see dirty truth of energy addiction thru oil boom

The US has a long history of keeping industrial activity far away from middle- and upper-class neighborhoods, but that is changing because of our oil boom. Though many like to tout the positive sides to fracking and horizontal drilling - increased energy independence, economic boost, and more jobs - people who live near the new drilling sites are starting to see the big downsides to drilling, up close and personal. And it ain't so pretty.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1WYFRGl89Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1WYFRGl89Q#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 02, 2014, 01:42:54 PM
ST. AUGUSTINE, Fla. -- While giving tours around St. Augustine via boat and kayak, Zach McKenna started noticing something new to the area: mangroves. Specifically, red mangroves.

"We're starting to see red mangroves pop up," said McKenna, who ownsSt. Augustine Eco Tours. "When you're with other scientists and educators, they'll say, 'Hey, you won't believe this. We're tracking red mangroves and they're not supposed to be here."

About seven years ago, he started spotting them around St. Augustine. He had seen the more common black mangroves before, but the red mangrove -- with its big roots -- really stuck out. It's typically found in the southern part of Florida.

"It's been a slow and steady increase," McKenna said.

 Scientists reported this week in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that mangroves are marching further north along Florida's Atlantic coast over the last 30 years, creeping into areas just south of St. Augustine.

And why?

"The proposed theory now is it's due to a lack of hard freezes. It doesn't mean there are not hard freezes here," but that the number of hard freezes per year is less, Dr. Gary Raulerson explained.  He is a mangrove ecologist and works at the Guana Tolomato Mantanzas National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Raulerson said research also shows mangroves' trunks get stronger over time.

"The mangroves have an opportunity to grow large enough so they're protecting themselves," he added.

Raulerson said while black mangroves are more common in St. Johns County, three varieties (the black, red and white) are starting to pop up this far north. 

It may be too early to know the full impact on the wildlife. But the first noticeable change could be in the surrounding plants.

"It will be going form salt marshes to mangroves. Shrubbery mangroves that are six to eight feet tall black mangroves," Raulerson said.

Raulerson said it could be "a long time" before animals may feel the impact.

He wondered aloud, "Do the crabs change? Do the fisheries change? Does the water quality change?"

Some scientists say the increase of mangroves can be a good thing because they are ecosystems that need protection.  However, mangroves could also negatively impact salt marshes, which are also important ecosystems.

"These changes in climate and the introduction of a species that aren't historically here will definitely change the flora which could then change the fauna of the area," McKenna noted.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/340281/483/Mangroves-moving-into-north-Florida?odyssey=tab (http://www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/340281/483/Mangroves-moving-into-north-Florida?odyssey=tab)|topnews|bc|large
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 02, 2014, 02:09:14 PM
Again I find it funny when cons disregard science in favor of something as simplistic as a snowy or cold day...something that's in their face...yet aren't skeptical of theism.

I'd say you are the con but you are making a valiant effort to catch up.  I see the previous 4 are all yours.

Saving them up I take it?

I like opposing viewpoints but dislike humdrum.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on January 02, 2014, 11:06:09 PM
Good news!  The climate change researchers have been rescued from the summer ice in the Antarctica.

Helicopter Rescues Global Warming Researchers From Ice
http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Helicopter-Rescues-Global-Warming-Researchers-From-Ice-238466791.html (http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Helicopter-Rescues-Global-Warming-Researchers-From-Ice-238466791.html)

All 52 passengers trapped for more than a week on an icebound Russian research ship in the Antarctic were rescued Thursday when a Chinese helicopter swooped in and plucked them from the ice a dozen at a time.

The dramatic international rescue operation became possible once the weather finally cleared. Blinding snow, strong winds, fog and thick sea ice forced rescuers to turn back time and again.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ussoccer26 on January 03, 2014, 01:22:28 AM
So much money is poured into both sides of this debate that all you can hear talking is the money. I wish people would just withhold their rash judgements and allow science to actually do it's thing. More than likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground of this debate.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 03, 2014, 09:43:25 AM
So much money is poured into both sides of this debate that all you can hear talking is the money. I wish people would just withhold their rash judgements and allow science to actually do it's thing. More than likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle ground of this debate.

To distill it further, yes the climate is changing, like it has for thousands of years (ice age).  Nothing will stop that and postulations just aggrivate the scenario, a scenario we really have no control over in the first place.

Humans 'think' they can alter and control everyhting but they can't.  I'm sure we as humans would like to control the weather but we cannot and never could.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 03, 2014, 09:50:02 AM

Humans 'think' they can alter and control everyhting but they can't.  I'm sure we as humans would like to control the weather but we cannot and never could.

Much like human nature.  Leaders think they can control us.  Without an understanding of human nature, all they can do is fence in the sheeple and kill the rest.

Live free or die.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ussoccer26 on January 03, 2014, 05:20:08 PM
To distill it further, yes the climate is changing, like it has for thousands of years (ice age).  Nothing will stop that and postulations just aggrivate the scenario, a scenario we really have no control over in the first place.

Humans 'think' they can alter and control everyhting but they can't.  I'm sure we as humans would like to control the weather but we cannot and never could.

To some extent we can alter the weather for a very short time through acid rain and cloud seeding.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Tiny on January 03, 2014, 09:35:08 PM
Good news!  The climate change researchers have been rescued from the summer ice in the Antarctica.

Helicopter Rescues Global Warming Researchers From Ice
[url]http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Helicopter-Rescues-Global-Warming-Researchers-From-Ice-238466791.html[/url] ([url]http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/Helicopter-Rescues-Global-Warming-Researchers-From-Ice-238466791.html[/url])

All 52 passengers trapped for more than a week on an icebound Russian research ship in the Antarctic were rescued Thursday when a Chinese helicopter swooped in and plucked them from the ice a dozen at a time.

The dramatic international rescue operation became possible once the weather finally cleared. Blinding snow, strong winds, fog and thick sea ice forced rescuers to turn back time and again.


Now the Chinese ship is stuck in ice according to the latest news.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 03, 2014, 09:41:53 PM
Now the Chinese ship is stuck in ice according to the latest news.

No problem.

If they are right about Global Warming they should get it out shortly.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 04, 2014, 12:58:24 AM
I would imagine that being on a ship stuck in the ice would be like camping, so long as the food and fuel for heat don'y run out...

And, maybe the ice don't crush the hull.....
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 04, 2014, 08:46:11 AM
Fox & Right-Wing America Mock Climate Scientists Rescued From Antarctica (1/2)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lgsmhYnfKA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lgsmhYnfKA#)


Fox & Right-Wing America Mock Climate Scientists Rescued From Antarctica (2/2)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tC6dvetgFg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tC6dvetgFg#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 04, 2014, 09:16:00 PM
I am glad to see they are already planning mitigation steps to heal the damage they did to the planet from the rescue.

 8*

Quote
The hapless Australasian Antarctic Expedition is finally homeward bound - and thousands of trees will have to be planted to offset the carbon footprint from the prolonged rescue effort.

The Russian research vessel Akademik Shokalskiy became stuck in thick pack ice some 3000km southwest of Bluff on Christmas Eve.

The 52 passengers, including six New Zealanders, spent eight days trapped before a helicopter from the Chinese ship Xue Long transferred them to Australian vessel Aurora Australis, which will take them to Hobart.

Yesterday, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority said the Xue Long's attempt to manoeuvre through the ice had been unsuccessful and it was now also beset by ice.

The expedition had pledged to plant about 800 kauri trees in Northland to cover its carbon footprint. Environmentalists believe planting trees helps to offset the impact of burning fuels such as diesel.


But former Act Party leader and Herald on Sunday columnist Rodney Hide said that would have to increase to about 5000 trees to make up for the fossil fuels burned in the rescue.

Expedition leader Chris Turney said more trees would be needed than earlier estimated but he was yet to work out how many.

Meanwhile, expedition members were "in fine spirits", and the crews still on the Akademik Shokalskiy and the Xue Long were confident they would break free of the pack ice. The scientific team had been recreating the 1911-to-1913 voyage of Australian explorer Douglas Mawson to Antarctica.

In an interview with AFP yesterday director of the French Polar Institute Yves Frenot criticised the "pseudo-scientific expedition".

Because it had run into difficulties, it had drained resources from the French, Chinese and Australian scientific missions in Antarctica, he said.

- APNZ


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470 (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on January 04, 2014, 09:30:26 PM
I am glad to see they are already planning mitigation steps to heal the damage they did to the planet from the rescue.

 8*

[url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470[/url] ([url]http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11181470[/url])
Sadly, no one will follow up and see if they plant those trees.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 04, 2014, 09:49:28 PM
Of course not and....  From they way the whole thing sounds, it appears it was a 'rich kids' pseudo expedition or somethinmg to do that wasn't boring and spent money.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 05, 2014, 09:45:41 AM
Sadly, no one will follow up and see if they plant those trees.

Of course not.

But saying they will plant the trees makes liberals feel good. 

That's what makes all liberals hypocrites. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 05, 2014, 12:19:05 PM
The US is now rescuing the rescuers -
so they will need to plant even more tree's to "feel good" about their bungles.

========================
(AP) A U.S. Coast Guard heavy icebreaker left Australia for Antarctica on Sunday to rescue more than 120 crew members aboard two icebreakers trapped in pack ice near the frozen continent's eastern edge, officials said.

The 122-meter (399-foot) cutter, the Polar Star, is responding to a Jan. 3 request from Australia, Russia and China to assist the Russian and Chinese ships because "there is sufficient concern that the vessels may not be able to free themselves from the ice," the Coast Guard said in a statement.

The Russian research ship Akademik Shokalskiy has been trapped in ice-clogged Commonwealth Bay since Christmas Eve, while the Chinese ship which came to its rescue, Xue Long or Snow Dragon in Chinese, reported on Friday it too had become stuck nearby.

A day earlier, the Chinese ship's helicopter had retrieved from the Russian ship 52 scientists, journalists and tourists who are now on their way home aboard an Australian icebreaker, Aurora Australis.

Authorities say the 101 crew aboard the Chinese ship and 22 aboard the Russian ship were well provisioned and in no immediate danger.

The Polar Star cut short its planned stop in Sydney, Australia, to assist. It left Sydney on Sunday morning local time, Coast Guard spokeswoman Chief Warrant Officer Allyson Conroy said in an email.

"Our highest priority is safety of life at sea, which is why we are assisting in breaking a navigational path for both of these vessels." Vice Adm. Paul F. Zukunft, the Coast Guard Pacific Area commander, said in a statement. "We are always ready and duty bound to render assistance in one of the most remote and harsh environments on the face of the globe."

The Australian Maritime Safety Authority's Rescue Coordination Centre, which oversaw the rescue, said the Polar Star, the Coast Guard's only active heavy polar icebreaker, would take about seven days to reach Commonwealth Bay, depending on weather.

After the Snow Dragon reported it was stuck on Friday, AMSA told the Aurora to stay in the area, with its rescued passengers on board, in case help was needed. Under international conventions observed by most countries, ships' crews are obliged to take part in such rescues and the owners carry the costs.

On Saturday, AMSA said the Aurora was allowed to continue and that the Chinese and Russian ships were safe.

Andrew Peacock, an Australian doctor and photographer who was rescued from the Russian ship, said he and his fellow passengers "have been and continue to be thankful for all the help we have been given and ... aware of the cost and inconvenience to others."

"Handwritten notes of gratitude from each person rescued have been scanned and faxed to the captain of the Chinese ship and Chinese authorities and we remain concerned for that ship and the Akademik Shokalskiy which remain in the ice and we fervently hope that the Polar Star gets there quickly to free those vessels and their crew," Peacock said in an email from the Aurora on Sunday.

The Polar Star left its homeport of Seattle in early December to take part in one of its main missions, Operation Deep Freeze, to break a channel through the sea ice of McMurdo Sound to resupply and refuel the U.S. Antarctic Program's McMurdo Station on Ross Island.

A reporter for China's official Xinhua News Agency who is aboard the Snow Dragon, Zhang Jiansong, said an iceberg appeared over Thursday night and blocked the ship's return route. He said the ship would again try to find a way out, possibly as early as Monday when westerly winds would hopefully loosen the ice's grip.

Zhang said late Saturday that the 101 crew members on board the vessel were safe and had plenty of supplies.

The Snow Dragon was 21 kilometers (13 miles) from open water, he said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-icebreaker-rescue-ships-antarctica-21424469 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/us-icebreaker-rescue-ships-antarctica-21424469)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 05, 2014, 12:30:25 PM
Simply amazing.  All because some feel-good liberals wanted to try to convince the world that there is global warming.

Talk about the backfire of all time!!!!

Now the U.S. Coast Guard has to come in and save the day.

They will be successful, I'm sure, where everyone else has failed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 05, 2014, 12:37:09 PM
But if they aren't who is going to rescue them?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 05, 2014, 12:42:58 PM
But if they aren't who is going to rescue them?

Maybe Ovomit will go rent a rubber dinghy and row out and do it.....
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 05, 2014, 12:58:25 PM
Maybe Ovomit will go rent a rubber dinghy and row out and do it.....

Ovomit IS a dinghy.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 05, 2014, 05:10:20 PM
Ovomit IS a dinghy.

Among other things, none of which are postable on here...........
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 05, 2014, 05:30:08 PM
I think it's funny that diesel engines are churning full power - to rescue greenies...   and "commies"... 

It has the Chinese in a quandary - they need the assistance and are embarrassed.   They have Finn's designing and building them a bigger/better ice breaker  (good ole Chinese ingenuity - stealing other's work and designs)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 05, 2014, 05:41:11 PM
The 'greenies' need to build a ship, or fleet of ships with enormous solar panels on top, making juice to drive electric motors to run a ship.....

Between the weight of the storage batteries (for night running) and the panels, it would probably sink.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 05, 2014, 11:37:27 PM
That global warming is going to give us a "High" of -1 (forecast for Tues)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 05, 2014, 11:43:34 PM
Man hnas been attempting (in vain) to alter the weather and the climate since we (civilized man) lived in caves and we haven't made any progress so why the worry anyway.  It is what it is...

Snowing like s SOB and colder than a witches breast.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ussoccer26 on January 06, 2014, 11:00:52 AM
Man hnas been attempting (in vain) to alter the weather and the climate since we (civilized man) lived in caves and we haven't made any progress so why the worry anyway.  It is what it is...

Snowing like s SOB and colder than a witches breast.

So you think climate change is occurring naturally with out humanity playing a role in it at all?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on January 06, 2014, 11:42:27 AM
I think it is to a degree as it seems to be part of the planet's cycle, but I also believe mankind has pushed it along and influenced it in the burning of fossil fuels.  The interesting science would be to see the percent influence of each.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 06, 2014, 06:46:36 PM
Thanks Fuzz for answering.  I'm of the same vien.  I believe we might have accelerated the changes but back in the ice age, active volcano's spewed out a helluva lot more Carbon Dixoide, Sulfur Dioxide and other crap than all the vehicles that we drive today and all the coal fired plants proiducing electricity.

I think climate change is a natural (for the most part) occurence.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 06, 2014, 06:49:00 PM
I agree - we play a part, but I think our % is very small compared to mother nature and the giant glowing orb called the sun.

Which is not to say we should pollute....  but we need to be intelligent about it. 

Sending manufacturing to China is not being intelligent about it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on January 06, 2014, 07:02:34 PM
I think, again just think based on what I have seen in my lifetime, that we have contributed quite a bit.  I can recall as a small child the Pittsburgh, PA industrial steel complexes.  Flip probably remembers the very smoggy and poor air quality of Cleveland.  Logic just tells me it had to harm the atmosphere in some manner.

We've since cleaned up our pollutants significantly but other flourishing manufacturing countries picked up where we left off in the 60's and 70's.   
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 06, 2014, 07:52:30 PM
Heck, I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire...and Ralph Perk's hair caught on fire too.

I heard that the Indian meaning for 'Cuyahoga' loosely translated means ''River that burns'.  It did.

Back when I was a kid, the Cleveland Municipal Garbage Dump (and I mean garbage dump as it raw putrid stinky rotting garbage) was right off the Lakeshore Freeway, just east of Deadman's curve.

The City touughtfully covered it over and built Burke Lakefront Airport on top of it.

Underneath Burke is hundreds of thousands of tons of decomposing garbage....  FYI.

I remember when the Cleveland Browns beat the Green Bay Packers for the title...I was there, watching, in the stands at Municipal Stadium and listening to the commentator on my 'state of the art; at that time AM transistor radio..........

Everyone in Cleveland at that time either worked at Alcoa on Harvard, Avenue, Republic Steel, Ford, Walton Hills, Ford foundry in Brookpark, GM Stamping on Brookpark Road o0r a supplier and everyone had plenty of money.  My dad worked at Republic and I could have worked there too, but I didn't.

Things have changed in Cleveland and not for the better.  Maybe better pollution wise (I remember the brown cloud that hung over the flats), we lived in the city, close enough that you could see it but of course you ignored it.

I visit there often, we have a plant on the Acelor Mittal (formerly Republic-LTV Steel) property and I go to that plant as we have drivers domiciled there.

Cleveland brings back memories, not all good.  I have a couple ex's there........ ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 07, 2014, 12:07:51 PM

Cleveland brings back memories, not all good.  I have a couple ex's there........ ;D

I used to go to the World Series of Rock - held for several years in the old baseball park.    Those were some wild memories -  anyone else recall the halter top of the 70's  :-),   lots of "trading" going on as those were all day concerts that went into the dark... 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 07, 2014, 12:10:04 PM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc11497520140106042800.jpg)

(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c11497320140106120100.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 07, 2014, 02:46:36 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BdSviTBCMAAxvH7.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 07, 2014, 10:12:39 PM
I wonder if Dandy Randy's mom did Al's hair? ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 09, 2014, 02:38:36 PM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/140105GWreligionRGB20140106103837.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 10, 2014, 12:58:14 PM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/140107climateRGB20140107111934.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 10, 2014, 05:01:27 PM
If 97% of engineers said that is a bridge was unsafe would you stop driving over it or would you believe the 3% and ignore the warning?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 07:11:47 PM
If 97% of engineers said that is a bridge was unsafe would you stop driving over it or would you believe the 3% and ignore the warning?

If the engineers were unbiased, I would stop driving across it.  Absolutely.

If the 97% all owned stock in the company that rebuilds bridges, I would be skeptical. 

Now, what does that have to do with global warming?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 07:38:53 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/02b775c86bc8c522b782953a9b400944/tumblr_mz2e1oog0f1qbxkjao1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 07:44:25 PM
Let me see.....

A bunch of global warming scientists had to be rescued from the Antarctic Ice Pack where they went to prove it was melting because they got trapped in thick ice.....

But I'm the Denier?

You guys make me laugh.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 07:45:48 PM
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/019b079f7cd666f7075f137fbcdec9fc/tumblr_mz5dmoqEKy1qbxkjao1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 08:21:42 PM
([url]http://25.media.tumblr.com/019b079f7cd666f7075f137fbcdec9fc/tumblr_mz5dmoqEKy1qbxkjao1_1280.jpg[/url])


So global warming causes colder weather.

Typical liberal logic.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 10, 2014, 08:22:56 PM
If the engineers were unbiased, I would stop driving across it.  Absolutely.

If the 97% all owned stock in the company that rebuilds bridges, I would be skeptical. 

Now, what does that have to do with global warming?

97% of unbiased scientists have sound evidence of global warming.   I was just trying to put it a way some of the more simple minded people would understand.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 08:24:39 PM
97% of unbiased scientists have sound evidence of global warming.   I was just trying to put it a way some of the more simple minded people would understand.

Really?

Care to provide proof?

A link to a website, perhaps?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 08:26:41 PM
97% of unbiased scientists have sound evidence of global warming.   I was just trying to put it a way some of the more simple minded people would understand.
LOL...and it still failed.  :D

Kudos for trying anyway.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 08:28:59 PM
Really?

Care to provide proof?

A link to a website, perhaps?
Try that wonderful site called Google.

Here, I'll help you spell it:
G-O-O-G-L-E
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 08:42:44 PM
Try that wonderful site called Google.

Here, I'll help you spell it:
G-O-O-G-L-E


Right.  Thanks, Fry.  I just did what you said, and look what I found!!!

Maybe some of those "simple minded" people can understand this.  If you simple minded people have any problems understanding some of those big words, let me know.  I'll try to help.




1.     Climate has always changed, and it always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a “stable” climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2.    Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no atmospheric warming since 1958.  In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect and other artefacts.

3.    Despite the expenditure of more than US$50 billion dollars looking for it since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4.    Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

     Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~26% (80 C) of the total greenhouse effect (330C), of which in turn at most 25% (~20C) can be attributed to carbon dioxide contributed by human activity. Water vapour, contributing at least 70% of the effect, is by far the most important atmospheric greenhouse gas.

5.    On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in atmospheric temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a diminishingly mild positive temperature feedback).

6.    The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, a retired Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that “the IPCC review process is fatally flawed” and that “the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz“.

7.    The Kyoto Protocol will cost many trillions of dollars and exercises a significant impost those countries that signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050, assuming that all commitments are met).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism “one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism“. If Kyoto was a “first step” then it was in the same wrong direction as the later “Bali roadmap”.

8.    Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9.    Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model is able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change.

10.   The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. Further, thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for hypothetical human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study within the context of known natural climate change.

LAYING TEN GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS

Myth 1     Average global temperature (AGT) has increased over the last few years.

Fact 1       Within error bounds, AGT has not increased since 1995 and has declined since 2002, despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 of 8% since 1995.

Myth 2     During the late 20th Century, AGT increased at a dangerously fast rate and reached an unprecedented magnitude.

Fact 2      The late 20th Century AGT rise was at a rate of 1-20 C/century, which lies well within natural rates of climate change for the last 10,000 yr. AGT has been several degrees warmer than today many times in the recent geological past.

Myth 3     AGT was relatively unchanging in pre-industrial times, has sky-rocketed since 1900, and will increase by several degrees more over the next 100 years (the Mann, Bradley & Hughes “hockey stick” curve and its computer extrapolation).

Fact 3      The Mann et al. curve has been exposed as a statistical contrivance. There is no convincing evidence that past climate was unchanging, nor that 20th century changes in AGT were unusual, nor that dangerous human warming is underway.

Myth 4     Computer models predict that AGT will increase by up to 60 C over the next 100 years.

Fact 4      Deterministic computer models do. Other equally valid (empirical) computer models predict cooling.

Myth 5     Warming of more than 20 C will have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and mankind alike.

Fact 5      A 20 C change would be well within previous natural bounds. Ecosystems have been adapting to such changes since time immemorial. The result is the process that we call evolution. Mankind can and does adapt to all climate extremes.

Myth 6     Further human addition of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous warming, and is generally harmful.

Fact 6      No human-caused warming can yet be detected that is distinct from natural system variation and noise. Any additional human-caused warming which occurs will probably amount to less than 10 C. Atmospheric CO2 is a beneficial fertilizer for plants, including especially cereal crops, and also aids efficient evapo-transpiration.

Myth 7     Changes in solar activity cannot explain recent changes in AGT.

Fact 7      The sun’s output varies in several ways on many time scales (including the 11-, 22 and 80-year solar cycles), with concomitant effects on Earth’s climate. While changes in visible radiation are small, changes in particle flux and magnetic field are known to exercise a strong climatic effect. More than 50% of the 0.80 C rise in AGT observed during the 20th century can be attributed to solar change.

Myth 8     Unprecedented melting of ice is taking place in both the north and south polar regions.

Fact 8      Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are growing in thickness and cooling at their summit. Sea ice around Antarctica attained a record area in 2007. Temperatures in the Arctic region are just now achieving the levels of natural warmth experienced during the early 1940s, and the region was warmer still (sea-ice free) during earlier times.

Myth 9     Human-caused global warming is causing dangerous global sea-level (SL) rise.

Fact 9      SL change differs from time to time and place to place; between 1955 and 1996, for example, SL at Tuvalu fell by 105 mm (2.5 mm/yr). Global average SL is a statistical measure of no value for environmental planning purposes. A global average SL rise of 1-2 mm/yr occurred naturally over the last 150 years, and shows no sign of human-influenced increase.

Myth 10   The late 20th Century increase in AGT caused an increase in the number of severe storms (cyclones), or in storm intensity.

Fact 10    Meteorological experts are agreed that no increase in storms has occurred beyond that associated with natural variation of the climate system.

 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 08:53:47 PM
Here's another tough question for those simple minded people out there...

What caused the end of the last ice age?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 08:56:53 PM
Right.  Thanks, Fry.  I just did what you said, and look what I found!!!

Maybe some of those "simple minded" people can understand this.  If you simple minded people have any problems understanding some of those big words, let me know.  I'll try to help.
[url]http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467[/url] ([url]http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467[/url])
Robert M. Carter
His position on global warming has been criticized by other scientists such as David Karoly, James Renwick and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg.
In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of $1,667 (USD), "as part of a program to pay 'high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message'."[31] While Carter did not deny that the payments took place, he declined to discuss the payments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter)

LOL...so much for your unbiased source.   ;)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 08:58:10 PM
Here's another tough question for those simple minded people out there...

What caused the end of the last ice age?
Are for looking at your reflection?

Guess you don't trust Google to answer your questions.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 09:08:30 PM
Here's another tough question for those simple minded people out there...

What caused the end of the last ice age?

Wait Wait - I know this.....  Al Gore told me - Was it man made pollution?

I think coal power plants and the internal combustion engine caused it?

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 09:33:10 PM
Wait Wait - I know this.....  Al Gore told me - Was it man made pollution?

I think coal power plants and the internal combustion engine caused it?
Clearly science wasn't your strong suit.

Guess the same could be said about using search engines.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 09:41:25 PM
Clearly science wasn't your strong suit.

Guess the same could be said about using search engines.

You are right.  Liberal Science was never a strong point.

I always got confused by facts.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 09:45:09 PM
You are right.  Liberal Science was never a strong point.

I always got confused by facts.
...and everything else as well.
Typical rightie.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 09:49:13 PM
There you go name calling again.

Typical Fry.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 10:07:14 PM
Wait Wait - I know this.....  Al Gore told me - Was it man made pollution?

I think coal power plants and the internal combustion engine caused it?

Nope.  Sorry MN.  You're wrong.


It was cow farts.


Google told me so.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 10:11:10 PM
Nope.  Sorry MN.  You're wrong.


It was cow farts.


Google told me so.

Wait - wasn't it Dinosaur farts?

And isn't it ironic that we burn them in out power plants and for gas now?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 10:15:13 PM
Wait - wasn't it Dinosaur farts?

And isn't it ironic that we burn them in out power plants and for gas now?

Oh geez, don't give the liberal fanatics more ammo!  Lol

See?  SEE? ? ? ? ? ?

The same thing caused the end of the last ice age as we're experiencing now!

Dinosaur farts then, burning dinosaurs now!!! Same thing!   ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 10:17:04 PM
Good Lord.  The sad thing is that some lefties on this sight actually believe that bullsh*t.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 10:24:19 PM
Nope.  Sorry MN.  You're wrong.


It was cow farts.


Google told me so.
Wait - wasn't it Dinosaur farts?

And isn't it ironic that we burn them in out power plants and for gas now?
Oh geez, don't give the liberal fanatics more ammo!  Lol

See?  SEE? ? ? ? ? ?

The same thing caused the end of the last ice age as we're experiencing now!

Dinosaur farts then, burning dinosaurs now!!! Same thing!   ;D
Good Lord.  The sad thing is that some lefties on this sight actually believe that bullsh*t.
Great examples of the value of your contributions...and why participation has been waning.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 10:30:12 PM
Great examples of the value of your contributions...and why participation has been waning.

Yup.  We're responsible for global warming, too.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 10:30:41 PM
I'm just trying to keep it light and humorous while providing a counterpoint.

I notice you didn't actually say anything said was not true, but instead went after character again.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 10:35:06 PM
I'm just trying to keep it light and humorous while providing a counterpoint.

I notice you didn't actually say anything said was not true, but instead went after character again.
Really? As if there was any point in refuting obvious ignorance.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 10:35:54 PM
I also noticed that Fry never answered my question of what ended the last ice age.

I guess it was too complicated.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 10:36:19 PM
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/ef970f55d0ae5f9c7e017347e7015645/tumblr_mz3i58ziDs1qdjbb7o1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 10:36:55 PM
(http://31.media.tumblr.com/504635ca47052f12870e6345b1c21c42/tumblr_mywbg9FPhB1qbxkjao1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 10, 2014, 10:37:09 PM
I also noticed that Fry never answered my question of what ended the last ice age.

I guess it was too complicated.

Its easier to come back with a cartoon.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 10, 2014, 10:39:39 PM
Its easier to come back with a cartoon.

Great examples of the value of Fry's contributions...and why participation has been waning.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 10:40:26 PM
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/V/C/6/Climate-Science-Deniers.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 10, 2014, 10:41:02 PM
(http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/7/S/C/6/Chilled-Out.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 11, 2014, 01:50:02 PM
Let me see.....

A bunch of global warming scientists had to be rescued from the Antarctic Ice Pack where they went to prove it was melting because they got trapped in thick ice.....

But I'm the Denier?

You guys make me laugh.



That's because according to their global warming predictions in 2008 - they thought they were going to find this...

(http://www.toonpool.com/user/380/files/global_warming_2_28765.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 13, 2014, 12:52:26 AM
Frigid U.S. Weather Emboldens Fox, GOP Global-Warming LIARS
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQV0N4wbvGw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQV0N4wbvGw#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 19, 2014, 12:03:02 AM
Doomsday Clock Set To 5 Minutes To Midnight, Risk Of Global Catastrophe ‘Remains High’

Doomsday may be fast approaching – at least figuratively, according to the Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

The Doomsday Clock, which acts as a symbolic indicator of “how close we are to destroying our civilization with dangerous technologies of our own making,” on Tuesday was set to five minutes until midnight, according to the board, suggesting "the risk of civilization-threatening technological catastrophe remains high."

The board’s announcement was addressed to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and members of the U.N. Security Council. Its members called on the United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals, end their missile defense programs, and lower alert levels for nuclear weapons.

The board did point out some recent positive developments, including negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program and in the production of renewable energy, but affirmed that they came with a "business-as-usual" standpoint that has failed to shrink nuclear arsenals and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"As always, new technologies hold the promise of doing great good, supplying new sources of clean energy, curing disease, and otherwise enhancing our lives. From experience, however, we also know that new technologies can be used to diminish humanity and destroy societies," the board wrote. "We can manage our technology, or become victims of it. The choice is ours, and the Clock is ticking." 

The Doomsday Clock was invented in 1947 by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a publication started by some of the researchers who worked on the atomic bomb. The clock has remained at five minutes until midnight since 2012. In 1991 it was set at 17 minutes until midnight – the longest since the clock’s inception. The board pointed to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty between the United States and Russia that reduced the number of nuclear weapons deployed by the two countries as the reason behind the world's stability at the time.

In 1953 the clock was set to two minutes before midnight -- the shortest since it was invented. The board cited the fact that the United States decided to make a hydrogen bomb and how the country decided to test its first thermonuclear device.

"The hands of the Clock of Doom have moved again," the board announced at the time. "Only a few more swings of the pendulum, and, from Moscow to Chicago, atomic explosions will strike midnight for Western civilization."

In its latest announcement the board asked world leaders to take steps to protect the environment.

"The science on climate change is clear, and many people around the world already are suffering from destructive storms, water and food insecurity, and extreme temperatures," the board wrote. "It is no longer possible to prevent all climate change, but you can limit further suffering -- if you act now."
http://www.ibtimes.com/doomsday-clock-set-5-minutes-midnight-risk-global-catastrophe-remains-high-1541218 (http://www.ibtimes.com/doomsday-clock-set-5-minutes-midnight-risk-global-catastrophe-remains-high-1541218)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 19, 2014, 12:04:18 AM
A Wake Up Call on Global Warming

Sen. Bernie Sanders joins members of a new congressional task force to discuss climate change.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-dTLYooY3Y (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-dTLYooY3Y#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 19, 2014, 12:06:05 AM
Al Roker Schools Rush Limaugh on Climate Change

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsinhvwLJb0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsinhvwLJb0#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 19, 2014, 12:52:50 AM
Cuss warning:

This Tiny Sliver Has HUGE Implications For How The World Works

"In 2012, National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell investigated peer-reviewed literature published about climate change and found that out of 13,950 articles, 13,926 supported the reality of global warming. Despite a lot of sound and fury from the denial machine, deniers have not really been able to come up with a coherent argument against a consensus. The same is true for a somewhat different study that showed a 97 percent consensus among climate scientists supporting both the reality of global warming and the fact that human emissions are behind it.

Powell recently finished another such investigation, this time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. Out of 2,258 articles (with 9,136 authors), how many do you think explicitly rejected human-driven global warming? Go on, guess!"

www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwF4lAptIz0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VwF4lAptIz0#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 19, 2014, 01:59:22 AM
"Say NO to morons" is right.   8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 09:52:35 AM
This is why I'm going to stop debating with climate change deniers.  The evidence is there.  It's solid and has been tested.  Still, love the videos Fry.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 09:57:51 AM
I am sorry you don't want to debate the "Science" of Global Warming.

I am sorry that anyone who questions it is called a "Denier."

However, there are more and more articles being written that the sun is in a cooling cycle, and there is a strong correlation to that and the planet temps it would seem.

Just an alternate theory - but since you don't want to talk about it lets not.

(http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/comic-covers/7736_450x600.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 19, 2014, 10:09:44 AM
I think the real 'Moron' stood up. 3 posts ago...... ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 10:24:44 AM
I am sorry you don't want to debate the "Science" of Global Warming.

I am sorry that anyone who questions it is called a "Denier."

However, there are more and more articles being written that the sun is in a cooling cycle, and there is a strong correlation to that and the planet temps it would seem.

Just an alternate theory - but since you don't want to talk about it lets not.

([url]http://media.dcentertainment.com/sites/default/files/comic-covers/7736_450x600.jpg[/url])


What is there to debate?  All of the studies that have come out against climate change have been funded by companies that make money off of people using fossil fuels.   Even if the sun is in a cooling phase it doesn't change the fact that the mean temperature of the earth has risen steadily, not including these last 10 or so years because the artic ice cap is melting and temporarily cooling that he oceans to steady out the temperature for a few years.


CO2 levels are increasing in the oceans causing reefs that have been around for thousands of years to begin to die off.  The artic ice cap is clearly disappearing at an alarming rate.  Then you look at all the weather events.  And the best part about it is that most of the people denying climate change are people who were told to be stewards of the earth.  Sure, ignore the studies.  You have that right.  You have the right to believe whatever you want, but just because you believe something doesn't make it true.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on January 19, 2014, 10:26:25 AM
You are correct!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 10:30:13 AM
The Ice Cap is melting?

That is good news for that ship that is stuck.

Everything is cyclical....

To ignore the contribution to the planet temperature of the giant glowing orb in space that supplies the vast bulk of the energy on our planet is ludicrous.

You have the right to believe what you believe.  I have the right to believe what I believe.

What I do know is this planet was once very tropical, and has had several ice ages, and none of it was man made.

Given that why should I believe that man is the biggest driver now?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 10:32:49 AM
There is no arguing with you since you refuse to understand science ( ie the difference between artic and antartic)behind it so I'm just going to answer with :because science.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 10:48:51 AM
There is no arguing with you since you refuse to understand science ( ie the difference between artic and antartic)behind it so I'm just going to answer with :because science.

So who funded your studies?  Am I to believe that only the side that questions Global Warming and its sources are driven by business interests?  Don't you think that is a bit naive?

There is money flowing on both sides of this equation.  It seems like Al Gore got rich selling Carbon Credits, among others.  Lots of "Alternative Energy Companies" out there getting government funding.  Lots of tax credits flowing here and there. 

I do know the difference by the way.  Fact is they went to the South Pole (ANTARCTIC - by the way you spelled that wrong) to show the ice pack was shrinking - and they got stuck.  I didn't want to question your grasp of the facts....  but since you opened the door.

So I guess the narrative now is the Arctic ice is melting, and we don't talk about the Antarctic anymore?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 10:55:00 AM
Again, a predicted outcome.  The polar vortex was also predicted.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 19, 2014, 10:59:05 AM
+1 on cyclical.  While we might (man) have an impact on it.  Do we all revert to ancient times and quit using internal combustion engines, quit producing electric power...live under a rock?

I don't think so.

The dinosaurs didn't make it, we probably won't either.....

The 'polar Vortex' is just a buzzword that sounds cool and modern.  Better to say 'Polar Vortex' than a cold front from the north.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 11:02:37 AM
But you act like the Polar Vortex is a new phenomenon too.

It isn't.

It is ridiculous - anything that happens - that already happened in the past - is all part of the model.

So anything that happens - any weather event - fits the model.

Its cold outside.

Fits the model.

Its hot outside.

Fits the model.

Lots of hurricanes.  Fits the model.

No Hurricanes.  Fits the model.

Tornados - Same Story.

Everything is in the model - so anything that happens they can say it fits the model.

Its like me saying when the stock market opens it is either going to go up, go down, stay flat, and it could be by alot or a little, and volume could be high or low.

Then after it closes I declare see - Tuesday fit my model.

Ridiculous.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 19, 2014, 11:13:44 AM
F Scott, please answer my simple question:

What event(s) ended the last ice age?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 19, 2014, 11:21:18 AM
Science ends when debate ends.

Then it's just one person's opinion.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 11:26:52 AM
What gets me is not only are we not allowed to have debate, we are called names if we don't buy in.

To me that is just typical of what you get when dealing with any Liberal dogma.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 05:39:55 PM
If I need to answer that for you Live either you need to go back to school or learn how to use google.

MN calling someone willfully ignorant is not name calling.  It's fact.  Debating climate change deniers is like debating creationists, there's no point.  I can present countless independent studies on man's effects on climate and you will still continue to deny climate change exists.  I have posted before how man has been manipulating local climates for thousands of years.  Since the industrial revolution man's emission outputs have increased exponentially.

You people are making the extraordinary claims so you must present the extraordinary evidence. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 19, 2014, 05:54:36 PM
I see. So you don't know.

Got it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 06:15:00 PM
Yes I do because technically we're still in one...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 06:17:55 PM
Climate change exists.  I can't deny Climate Change Exists.  There is fossil evidence this planet has had climate changes many times.

Furthermore during written history we can see there has been hot times, and there have been mini ice ages.  We have the records.

I don't deny Climate Change exists.

What I question is how much influence mankind's activities have on climate change.  And stay with me here one moment....  we know the climate has change without us before....  so if it changes again....  why should we believe it was due to something we did?  Isn't it just possible other external factors could be at play?

For crying out loud talking climate change to a liberal is like trying to convince them that a fetus is life.  Just because you can cut it out of the womb at 6 months and keep it alive doesn't mean it is life.....  Same thing.  Just because the climate changed without mankind doing anything to the planet with coal or gas or fossil fuels doesn't mean it isn't our fault next time it happens.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 19, 2014, 06:27:10 PM
Yes I do because technically we're still in one...

We're still in an ice age?

REALLY?

What have you been smoking??
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 06:30:51 PM
Ok.  When we started to have to produce mass amounts of food to feed an exponentially growing population we started putting tons of greenhouse gas in the air.  Most of this is methane from cattle production. The rest is an assortment of fossil fuels being burned via vehicles, coal power plants,  or gas heating.  The fact that we can track this increase in greenhouse gasses in correlation with temperatures rising gives us probable cause to believe that man has an impact on global climate change.  That hypothesis has been tested time and time again and shown that man has had a direct impact on global climate change.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 06:31:55 PM
We're still in an ice age?

REALLY?

What have you been smoking??

Technically we are still in an ice age.  Feel free to look it up.  We have been in an ice age for the last 2.8 million years.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 06:35:04 PM
Have you ever had the pleasure of going to China?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 19, 2014, 06:41:10 PM
No but I would like to and I am well informed of what is happening over there.  It's a shame.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 19, 2014, 06:43:04 PM
We're still in an ice age?

REALLY?

What have you been smoking??

A doobie no doubt.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 19, 2014, 06:58:07 PM
No but I would like to and I am well informed of what is happening over there.  It's a shame.

It makes LA on a bad day look like paradise.

You can't believe it until you see it.

Having seen it and breathed it I would pay to never have to go there again.

If you told me they were killing the planet I'd totally believe you.

Now - who can make the Chinese do something about it?  I'm also pretty sure out of the developing world they are not the only ones.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 19, 2014, 07:03:47 PM
It makes LA on a bad day look like paradise.

You can't believe it until you see it.

Having seen it and breathed it I would pay to never have to go there again.

If you told me they were killing the planet I'd totally believe you.

Now - who can make the Chinese do something about it?  I'm also pretty sure out of the developing world they are not the only ones.

Exactly......  We can (as a nation and as individuals) be clean as the driven snow (at unimaginable costs) and China and the rest of the Pacific Rim countries are crapping up the enviroment.

What will happen (actually is happening) is we loose our industrial base and become a service oriented country with a lower standard of living (you and me) and China and the rest of the industrialized polluters uses us for a doormat.

Isn't that Obama's credo???
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 20, 2014, 01:24:31 AM
I think the real 'Moron' stood up. 3 posts ago...... ;D
Well he did visit you so thanks for affirming my strong suspicion.  ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 20, 2014, 01:28:02 AM
We're still in an ice age?

REALLY?

What have you been smoking??
An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 20, 2014, 03:25:20 AM
Media Coverage Of Climate Change Was Up (But Still Dismal)

"Climate change got more coverage on broadcast news in 2013 than in the previous few years, but the issue still didn't get nearly as much attention as it did in 2009, Media Matters found in a new analysis.

ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox together featured more coverage in 2013 than they did in 2012. The amount of airtime granted to climate change on both the Sunday shows and the nightly news was up, too -- to a total of 27 minutes, and an hour and 42 minutes, respectively, for the entire year. The progressive media watchdog group Media Matters totaled the time broadcasters devoted to climate change for a new report released Thursday.

The Media Matters report deemed overall coverage of climate change "tepid," and noted there were many news events in 2013 that created opportunities for coverage, including carbon dioxide levels that exceeded 400 parts per million in May, President Barack Obama's major climate policy address in June, and the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment in September."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNzYvOVfVU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTNzYvOVfVU#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 20, 2014, 09:32:41 AM
An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers.

I see.  So, temperatures are going DOWN, and polar ice sheets are EXPANDING.

Yup.  Sounds like global warming to me!   8*

You liberals are funny.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 20, 2014, 06:25:37 PM
Sounds like the European Union is about to discover the joys of Fracking and back down on the "Global Warming" initiatives.

Does that signal their leadership is acknowledging they don't believe it anymore?

Quote
The climate between Brussels and Berlin is polluted, something European Commission officials attribute, among other things, to the "reckless" way German Chancellor Angela Merkel blocked stricter exhaust emissions during her re-election campaign to placate domestic automotive manufacturers like Daimler and BMW. This kind of blatant self-interest, officials complained at the time, is poisoning the climate.

But now it seems that the climate is no longer of much importance to the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, either. Commission sources have long been hinting that the body intends to move away from ambitious climate protection goals. On Tuesday, the Süddeutsche Zeitung reported as much.

At the request of Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU member states are no longer to receive specific guidelines for the development of renewable energy. The stated aim of increasing the share of green energy across the EU to up to 27 percent will hold. But how seriously countries tackle this project will no longer be regulated within the plan. As of 2020 at the latest -- when the current commitment to further increase the share of green energy expires -- climate protection in the EU will apparently be pursued on a voluntary basis.

Climate Leaders No More?

With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role. Back in 2007, when Germany held the European Council presidency, the body decided on a climate and energy legislation package known as the "20-20-20" targets, to be fulfilled by the year 2020. They included:

a 20 percent reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions;
raising the share of EU energy consumption produced from renewable resources to 20 percent;
and a 20 percent improvement in the EU's energy efficiency.
All of the goals were formulated relative to 1990 levels. And the targets could very well be met. But in the future, European climate and energy policy may be limited to just a single project: reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Commission plans also set no new binding rules for energy efficiency.

Welcome, Frackers

In addition, the authority wants to pave the way in the EU for the controversial practice of fracking, according to the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. The report says the Commission does not intend to establish strict rules for the extraction of shale gas, but only minimum health and environmental standards.

The plans will be officially presented next Wednesday ahead of an EU summit meeting in March. Observers, however, believe that a decision is unlikely to come until the summer at the earliest. But action must be taken this year: At the beginning of 2015, a climate conference will take place in Paris at which a global climate agreement is to be hashed out.

The European Parliament is unlikely to be pleased with the Commission's plans. Just at the beginning of January, a strong parliamentary majority voted to reduce carbon emissions EU-wide by 40 percent by 2030 and to raise the portion of renewables to at least 30 percent of energy consumption.

Germany's Energy Goals at Risk

The Commission's move further isolates Germany. Merkel's government, a "grand coalition" of her conservatives and the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), seeks to increase the share of renewables in the country's energy mix to 60 percent by 2036. As reported in the latest issue of SPIEGEL, Sigmar Gabriel, SPD chair and minister of energy and economics, recently urged Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger to put forth mandatory expansion targets for renewable energy in the EU by 2030. Europe "can't afford to pass up this opportunity," Gabriel wrote.

But within the Commission, the ambitious project has long been controversial. The same goes for EU member states, as Gabriel recently discovered. Prior to Christmas the minister, together with eight colleagues from throughout the EU, called for a "renewables target" in a letter to the Commission. But some countries, such as France, joined the appeal only hesitantly at the time. Paris might prefer instead to rely more heavily on nuclear power in order to meet stringent carbon emission requirements.
Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger, a German from Merkel's Christian Democratic Union, has also shown reluctance. Rather than setting clear goals for the share of renewables, he wants fixed targets only for the reduction of carbon emissions -- and he is skeptical even of the 40 percent target proposed by Climate Commissioner Hedegaard.

The Berlin-based German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) writes in a recent study that more moderate EU climate goals and less support for renewable energies could have a real impact on Germany's so-called Energiewende, or energy revolution. "In such a context," writes the nonpartisan think tank, "it will be increasingly difficult for Germany to successfully carry out pioneering policies."


http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 20, 2014, 07:27:07 PM
Germany is known for their beer standards so why not introduce more flavor?


[url]http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/05/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-from-drilling/4328859/[\url]

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 21, 2014, 09:11:36 AM
FScott12345,

First let me say that I don't know that much about "fracking" other than what I have read on-line and seen in movies or on TV.  I have never seen a fracking well nor do I know anyone that has (as far as I am aware). 

OK, you shared the USA Today Story (AP) with the headline: 4 states confirm water pollution from drilling.  Because my knowledge is limited I read the story with great interest but found myself questioning the hysteria of the headline and the information in the story after reading it.  Although this may take sometime let me explain. 

You seemed to relate this story to the EU's exploration of fracking as shared by Monroe Native.  The truth is the story, even if the headline is true (more on that later), there is little relationship to Germany or the EU's decision to begin fracking as according to the story the data was not broken down to distinguish between  fracking wells or traditional oil / gas wells; some conventional oil and gas wells are still drilled, so the complaints about water contamination can come from them, too.

While the headline tells us that states have "confirmed" water pollution the story is greatly different.  In the story they cite a 2011 report from PSU which found that about 40% of water wells tested prior to gas drilling failed at least one federal drinking water standard. Lets say that instead of 40% only 20% were contaminated prior to drilling and lets use that as a baseline to examine what percentage of wells may or may not be contaminated after drilling - sound fair? 

So using the data from the story I found: 

State  Time       #Wells  #Complaints  #Contam  #Contam   %Contam  %Contam           
          Frame     Drilled                                      by drilling   Total         by drilling
 PA     '05-13     5,000[1]   897[2]         106[3]        0          11.82         unknown
 OH    '10-13     unknown   160               6              0          3.75                0
 WV    '10-13     unknown   122               4              4          3.28            3.28
 TX     '03-13[4] unknown   2,000[5]       0              0            0                 0
Totals                5,000[6]   3,179          116            4          3.65            0.12               

[1] AP story is 5,000+ with no specific number used.
[2] Complaints are only from '12-13. Further, "Pennsylvania complaints can include allegations of short-term diminished water flow, as well as pollution from stray gas or other substances."
[3] Story list 106 contamination's from '05 forward although the number of "complaints" being used are  from '12-13.  The number of contaminations given in story for '10-12 is 52.  I did not use this number because I wanted to use the higher number of contaminations that was printed in the story (from '09-forward).  Had the lower number been used and compared to the 897 complaints from '12-13 the numbers (percentages) would have been cut in half to be 5.8.   
[4] No timeframe given in story.  Story states; "Texas provided the most detail (reports)" and "Texas officials supplied a detailed 94-page spreadsheet almost immediately, listing all types of oil and gas related complaints over much of the past two years. The Texas data include the date of the complaint, the landowner, the drilling company and a brief summary of the alleged problems. Many complaints involve other issues, such as odors or abandoned equipment." also "Texas regulators haven't confirmed a single case of drilling-related water-well contamination in the past 10 years".
[5] Story states more than 2,000 complaints, and 62 of those allege possible well-water contamination from oil and gas activity.  Meaning if we just use 2,000 complaints only 3.1% of all complaints allege water contamination from oil and gas activity
[6] Total is unknown because story does not list the number of wells drilled, applications submitted or approved in three of the four states.

Earlier I offered the idea of using the same 2011 PSU study that the AP citied in this story which found 40% of wells were contaminated prior to drilling as a baseline and even stated that cutting that in half to 20% would be great.  As you can see by the story reported by AP via USA Today the data they shared does not even show a total contamination rate above 12%.  In essence by including the PSU study they have undercut the reporting they are trying to do. 

It seems to me the headline, "4 States Confirm Water Pollution From Drilling" is not about reporting the "facts" but about fear (or something else equally irresponsible) as the story even states that Texas has not confirmed any cases of contamination in ten years.  PA reports no cases attributable to drilling (note, does not mean drilling is not responsible just that it isn't reported by the state as the cause).  OH reports the 6 cases of contamination are not a result of fracking (per, DNR) and WV states only that, in four cases the evidence was strong enough that the driller agreed to take corrective action.  IOW, the AP reports that of 3,179 complaints they found 120 incidents of contamination (3.77%) and of that 120 they report 4 are due to drilling (3.33 of the 120 total and 0.12 of all complaints).  Simply consider that while they say "four states" the truth is the evidence they print in the story shows - One state confirmed contamination from drilling not four.  Not a very "damning" piece of journalism considering the headline, IMO. 

Seems like sloppy, half-arsked reporting, IMO and while the AP opined that they could not get all the data they wanted from the states it makes me wonder did they seek the number of drilling permits?  If they could not get the information they wanted then why run an incomplete story that they must know is filled with errors (or did they not do simple percentages of contamination based upon complaints v. contaminations and compare that to the PSU study they citied).  It seems they were hoping the numbers would be "scary" (or something) and that people would stop thinking after seeing them.  The headline and story are greatly disconnected and do not show the causation that they attempt to assert. 

As I said, I don't know much about fracking but am reading more.  Please don't direct me to Gasland, Gasland 2 or Promiseland - seen all three.  I guess my point is that the AP story does not report what it is contended to report once you actually look at the numbers. 

As a disclaimer; any contamination is to much however attempting to connect an activity to contamination when the data shared undercuts it is equally (IMO) as reckless as it fill people with fear. 

Anyhow - Back to "Climate Change" with a question if that is OK; what percentage of global climate change has been deemed responsible because of humans and what are the sources of that contribution? 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 21, 2014, 08:05:50 PM
what percentage of global climate change has been deemed responsible because of humans and what are the sources of that contribution?

That is an excellent question!

Very good analysis on the fracking contamination question. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: jbs49238 on January 22, 2014, 02:52:15 AM
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=dtx&storyid=99811&source=0 (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/news/display_cmsstory.php?wfo=dtx&storyid=99811&source=0)

Has to be climate change... NO WAY GLOBAL WARMING COULD BE THE CULPRIT!!!!!

The left will say or interpret whatever it needs to keep the government cash flowing and the uninformed public confused.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 05:57:35 AM
No such thing as climate change.  Nope.  Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-wildfires-drought-20140120,0,6209864.story?track=rss#axzz2rDa99Vjv (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-wildfires-drought-20140120,0,6209864.story?track=rss#axzz2rDa99Vjv)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 23, 2014, 06:29:04 AM
No such thing as climate change.  Nope.  Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

[url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-wildfires-drought-20140120,0,6209864.story?track=rss#axzz2rDa99Vjv[/url] ([url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-wildfires-drought-20140120,0,6209864.story?track=rss#axzz2rDa99Vjv[/url])


I don't get the snarkyness of "Nope.  Just ignore the man behind the curtain".  The article posted does not mention "climate change" not once. 

Are you saying there is a correlation between climate change and the drought in California?  If so do you have information available (source material) that others could review? 

In terms of climate change, what percentage of global climate change has been deemed responsible because of humans and what are the sources of that contribution? 


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 08:54:15 AM
Absolutely I'm saying there's a direct correlation.  We're having increased extreme weather events around the globe.  Here's a source for 174 rebuttals to climate change deniers.  I've done a ton of research on the subject (as well as many others since I have a lot of free time and have an information addiction).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 08:59:01 AM
I don't get the snarkyness of "Nope.  Just ignore the man behind the curtain".  The article posted does not mention "climate change" not once. 

Are you saying there is a correlation between climate change and the drought in California?  If so do you have information available (source material) that others could review? 

In terms of climate change, what percentage of global climate change has been deemed responsible because of humans and what are the sources of that contribution?


3/4 of climate change is man made.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/ (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/three-quarters-of-climate/)

Here's a more recent Washington Post article with links to the IPCC Report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ipcc-says-humans-cause-global-warming/2013/09/27/aae32880-275d-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/ipcc-says-humans-cause-global-warming/2013/09/27/aae32880-275d-11e3-b3e9-d97fb087acd6_story.html)

Here's an article from Popular Science with an interesting infographic about global warming.  This was published  10 days ago.  Please note that the studies were peer reviewed which is critical in scientific research.

http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change (http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change)

(http://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/image_full/public/Powell%20Pie%20Chart%202.png?itok=gg8gKEAg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 23, 2014, 10:09:45 AM
Science by concensus is not science.


1. Given that the president stopped giving that speech telling Americans to examine Spain if they want to see how the “clean energy economy” works  -- by the way, why doesn’t he give that speech any more? -- where has it worked?

Please be specific. A country’s name will do. And, if you could go ahead and explain why the rest of the world hasn’t noticed the miracle, too, that would be great.

2. If we ignore the ever-expanding body of countervailing evidence (“reality”), accept everything you say, and impose your carbon tax and replicate Spain’s economy and all of those other great ideas: will the temperature be any different?

Are you aware that all of your climate models -- we call it a “consensus” -- say the temperature after cap-n-trade or a carbon tax would be whatever it would be without cap-n-trade, or a carbon tax? That nothing ever proposed would detectably impact climate, even accepting all of your assumptions, even the ones already proved wrong?

3. How many jobs are the right number to kill for no impact on climate? While I have you, same thing for, um, the right number of unnecessary deaths from energy poverty?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/01/21/5-cool-ways-remind-senators-how-biased-media-are-climate (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sean-long/2014/01/21/5-cool-ways-remind-senators-how-biased-media-are-climate)

And hasn't the IPCC report been debunked many times over in all of your research?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 11:59:35 AM
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm (http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm)

Quote
Claims that the IPCC is alarmist are not supported by evidence, and there are clear indications that the opposite may be the case.


I'm sorry but clean energy will create many jobs.  Please see this link to discredit your claims.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 23, 2014, 12:48:02 PM
No such thing as climate change.  Nope.  Just ignore the man behind the curtain.

[url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-wildfires-drought-20140120,0,6209864.story?track=rss#axzz2rDa99Vjv[/url] ([url]http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-wildfires-drought-20140120,0,6209864.story?track=rss#axzz2rDa99Vjv[/url])


So, a short term event like a drought and wildfire in one part of one state is definite proof of man made global warming.

But record cold and record snow fall over a huge chunk of the country is NOT proof that global warming does NOT exist.  As a matter of fact, it's just another anomaly that was CAUSED by man made global warming.

That's not logical.

That's not science. 

That's not even one persons informed opinion.

That's just CRAZY!!!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 01:54:47 PM
So, a short term event like a drought and wildfire in one part of one state is definite proof of man made global warming.

But record cold and record snow fall over a huge chunk of the country is NOT proof that global warming does NOT exist.  As a matter of fact, it's just another anomaly that was CAUSED by man made global warming.

That's not logical.

That's not science. 

That's not even one persons informed opinion.

That's just CRAZY!!!

Did you even read any of the science behind global warming?  You're choosing to remain willfully ignorant.  It's not a good color on you.

Actually it is perfectly logical.  Models have shown such activities would occur.  Just because you choose to ignore hard evidence doesn't mean something isn't true.  Just like evolution.  Did you see we discovered a new species not too long ago.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 23, 2014, 02:05:31 PM
You are truly delusional.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 02:07:53 PM
And you don't seem to understand the weight peer reviewed studies have.  I posted an infographic.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 23, 2014, 02:22:57 PM
Did you even read any of the science behind global warming?  You're choosing to remain willfully ignorant.  It's not a good color on you.

Actually it is perfectly logical.  Models have shown such activities would occur.  Just because you choose to ignore hard evidence doesn't mean something isn't true.  Just like evolution.  Did you see we discovered a new species not too long ago.

And you don't seem to understand the weight peer reviewed studies have.  I posted an infographic.

I have not finished reading the first two links and will comment on them after I fully digest them should I have questions. 

That said, it seems that you continue to draw a correlation or causation to things even when the actual news sources you cite does not do so.  Consider that the LA Times article does not once address global warming / global climate change but only the draught and risk of fires in the upcoming months.  The LA Times does not say this "risk" has been accelerated, caused or impacted by global climate change.  Of course, sure it is possible that it could be and while I don't dismiss that, my point is that because the citation you use offers no correlation for this than it is only your "faith" in global climate change that allows you to see such a correlation from this news story.  To say it differently, while I understand your "faith" in the science behind global warming is telling you to make that "correlation" and maybe even assign a "causation", the LA Times article does not do this.  I believe that was the point but I could be wrong. 

This is similar to the AP article you posted earlier about "4 states confirm water pollution from drilling".  The headline looked good but the data did not support that "causation" that was asserted. 

Anyhow - hope you get the sarcasm and understand the purpose. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 02:27:39 PM
I have not finished reading the first two links and will comment on them after I fully digest them should I have questions. 

That said, it seems that you continue to draw a correlation or causation to things even when the actual news sources you cite does not do so.  Consider that the LA Times article does not once address global warming / global climate change but only the draught and risk of fires in the upcoming months.  The LA Times does not say this "risk" has been accelerated, caused or impacted by global climate change.  Of course, sure it is possible that it could be and while I don't dismiss that, my point is that because the citation you use offers no correlation for this than it is only your "faith" in global climate change that allows you to see such a correlation from this news story.  To say it differently, while I understand your "faith" in the science behind global warming is telling you to make that "correlation" and maybe even assign a "causation", the LA Times article does not do this.  I believe that was the point but I could be wrong. 

This is similar to the AP article you posted earlier about "4 states confirm water pollution from drilling".  The headline looked good but the data did not support that "causation" that was asserted. 

Anyhow - hope you get the sarcasm and understand the purpose.

The LA Times article doesn't say there's a correlation, but there is.  The reason why I posted it was because JBS denied climate change using a local statistic.  I in turned did the same to counter.  Regardless after reading 15+ peer reviewed papers on the subject of global warming, I find direct causation between the two.

If you would like to get into a discussion about fracking, I would gladly do that elsewhere.  I have read many papers and articles about that as well.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 23, 2014, 02:30:12 PM
Since the article did not mention global warming or climate change, that means it also had no connection to MAN MADE global warming.

Using this article as proof is very poor science.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 02:34:54 PM
Since the article did not mention global warming or climate change, that means it also had no connection to MAN MADE global warming.

Using this article as proof is very poor science.

Live, you're a tall guy.  I know I'm a bad shot (except with a bow), but I didn't think the point would go that far over your head.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 23, 2014, 02:45:53 PM
The LA Times article doesn't say there's a correlation, but there is.

You see a correlation because of your faith in global science change and this allows you to believe this is so - even when the citation offers no correlation or causation.  Please don't inundate me with links of studies that would not "support" such a position as while I am sure they exist (as there seems to be a model that explains everything; warming trend, cooling trend, less snow, more snow, lower water level, higher water level and so on), citing them afterwards is both ineffective and boorish, IMO. 

If you would like to get into a discussion about fracking, I would gladly do that elsewhere.  I have read many papers and articles about that as well.

To be fair, I don't.  I responded to the very illogical article you cited, in this thread, which showed neither a causation (as the headline maintained) or even a simple correlation once the actual numbers were examined. 
 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 02:55:11 PM
So the number of peer reviewed studies cited in the Popular Science article mean nothing?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 23, 2014, 03:05:03 PM
Funny that you understand blind faith when it comes to global warming, but you can't understand blind faith when it comes to the Supreme Being that created you and loves you and sent his only son to die for your sins.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 03:10:19 PM
So are you equating peer reviewed studies and blind faith? I guess 9135 scientists can be wrong...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: blue2 on January 23, 2014, 03:14:39 PM
The inch or so of snow everyday isn't bothering me.  I'm getting awful tired of the cold.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 23, 2014, 03:24:10 PM
So the number of peer reviewed studies cited in the Popular Science article mean nothing?

If your referring to my comment I don't believe I said that at all. 

That  said, the PopSci "article" is a one page (less than 2,000 word overview) of a "survey" done among climate scientist and does not mention droughts, fires or water contamination from drilling. 

In essence the survey results show that scientist who have written about climate change agree that man is and will have an impact on climate change - fair.  It does not speak to a correlation between the LA times article on draughts and the fear of forest fires and global climate change or the USA Today / AP article on drilling and global climate change or are you saying that you have read all 2.258 articles by the 9,139 authors. 

You understand the point being made, I am sure.  It isn't that such a correlation does not exist it is just the citation used (in three instances now) does not support it.  Simple logic and science, yeah. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 03:33:23 PM
You admitted those papers overwhelming conclude that there is a correlation between man and climate change.  If you would really like me to do more in depth research and cite specific papers that correlate what is happening in cali to what is happening here, I will gladly do so.  Just let me know how many papers you want me to read.  I will do everything in my power to read an equal number of papers denying the correlation and supporting it.  Believe me I have the free time to do it.  Just know that reading such papers will take time and I will come back to the debate after reading the papers.  The only thing I as is that I do not actually have to read studies that require a payment to read.  I'm doing alright for myself, but I don't have the funds to shell out for  lot of papers.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 23, 2014, 03:42:45 PM
You admitted those papers overwhelming conclude that there is a correlation between man and climate change. 

No, I admit that is what the survey said.  I have no idea - I did not read them. 

If you would really like me to do more in depth research and cite specific papers that correlate what is happening in cali to what is happening here, I will gladly do so. 

But you can't unring the bell or put the genie back in the bottle. 

You already asserted that there is a direct correlation between global climate change and the LA Times article.  You can't now say . . OK, let me go and read and find the correlation. 

Same is true with the USA Today / AP article posted to support the horrors of fracking / drilling - except the article (like the LA Times article) does not support a correlation / causation. 

Am I saying that one does not, has not or will never exist to support you faith in global warming?  No that is not what I am saying at all.  To simplify, the articles you posted (LA Times, USA Today / AP) do not support or mention a correlation / causation to global warming therefore using them as citations for such a correlation does not meet the "smell test" as to do so goes beyond to scope of the information presented in either article and would not be scientifically valid. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 23, 2014, 04:10:36 PM
Because I have read studies that support the correlation for both I jumped to conclusions that others would see the same correlation.   That is my fault, and I take full responsibility.  Sometimes I forget that I spend most of my off time, especially with the recent MCL injury,  doing research on various things.  I now realize that most people don't  have the spare time I have due to other commitments to family, charities, and other things.  The next time I make a post asserting something I will make sure to cite documented papers to back up my points.  I understand that people don't like "copypasta" but it will be necessary for my assertions. I will only ask that others do the same in the future.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 23, 2014, 04:41:21 PM
Lol - I guess if that is what you want to take out of it.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 23, 2014, 08:07:48 PM
Funny - I read the Bible and took something totally different out of it than you did.

Why would you think I would take the same thing from your bogus science studies?

Face it - Global Warming is your Religion, you have faith in it.  Unfortunately yours is a false god.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 23, 2014, 08:38:58 PM
I'm pretty sure I saw Lake Erie freezing over on the list of things that would happen with Global Warming.....

Yep - I am positive it was on the list.


Quote
BUFFALO, N.Y. (AP) — For people living along Lake Erie, there's a silver lining to the arctic cold gripping the region: a halt to lake-effect snow storms. #The Buffalo News reports that with the lake nearly fully covered in ice, the likelihood of lake-effect storms dumping large amounts of snow on western New York nearly disappears. It's the warmer, open waters of Lake Erie during winter months that lead to the types of snow storms that have buried parts of the region in recent weeks. #The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory says the lake is about 95 percent covered with ice. #Another upside to an ice-covered lake: More sunshine. The moisture from open water rises, creating the snow-laden clouds that block the sun.

Read more at: [url]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jan/23/deep-freeze-has-lake-erie-nearly-covered-ice/[/url] ([url]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jan/23/deep-freeze-has-lake-erie-nearly-covered-ice/[/url])
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on January 23, 2014, 09:42:22 PM
Polar Vortex in U.S. May be Example of Global Warming

While the ongoing cold snap is breaking records from Minnesota to Florida, it will not go down in history as the most significant Arctic outbreak in U.S. history, not even by a longshot. Scientists said the deep freeze gripping the U.S. does not indicate a halt or reversal in global warming trends, either. In fact, it may be a counterintuitive example of global warming in action.

Researchers told Climate Central that the weather pattern driving the extreme cold into the U.S. — with a weaker polar vortex moving around the Arctic like a slowing spinning top, eventually falling over and blowing open the door to the Arctic freezer — fits with other recently observed instances of unusual fall and wintertime jet stream configurations.

Such weather patterns, which can feature relatively mild conditions in the Arctic at the same time dangerously cold conditions exist in vast parts of the lower 48, may be tied to the rapid warming and loss of sea ice in the Arctic due, in part, to manmade climate change.

Arctic warming is altering the heat balance between the North Pole and the equator, which is what drives the strong current of upper level winds in the northern hemisphere commonly known as the jet stream. Some studies show that if that balance is altered then some types of extreme weather events become more likely to occur.

During the past week, while much of North America has seen frigid temperatures, weather maps show a strip of orange and red hues, indicating above-average temperatures, across parts of the Arctic, Scandinavia, Europe and Asia.

The forecast high temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, on Monday was in the 20s Fahrenheit — warmer than many locations in Georgia and Alabama. That fits in with the so-called “Arctic Paradox” or “Warm Arctic, Cold Continents” pattern that researchers first identified several years ago. Such patterns bring comparatively mild conditions to the Arctic while places far to the south are thrown into a deep freeze.

“I do think that what has happened in the North America, including the U.S. this winter, so far fits under the paradigm of ‘warm Arctic cold continents,’ ” Judah Cohen, a climate forecaster at Atmospheric and Environmental Research in Massachussetts, said in an email.

The warmth in the Arctic made headlines in early December when the temperature hit 39°F in Prudhoe Bay, north of the Arctic Circle. That was the highest December temperature on record there since at least 1968, according to the National Weather Service.

Cohen published a study in September that found this Arctic paradox pattern has become common in years with low fall sea ice cover and rapidly advancing fall snow cover across parts of Asia, and that there is a likely link between the trends. The paper found the pattern was observed during the winter of 2012-2013, following the lowest fall sea ice extent on record in September 2012.

The Arctic has had a mild winter so far, in part because of an area of high pressure in the North Pacific Ocean that has blocked the flow of weather systems like a stop sign at an intersection, forcing the jet stream northward over western Canada, and then back down to the southeast across the U.S. That favors episodic outbreaks of cold air in the East, Cohen said, but not extended cold.

Jennifer Francis, a researcher at Rutgers University and the most prominent proponent of the hypothesis that Arctic warming is altering the jet stream around the Northern Hemisphere, told Climate Central that while the cold snap is brief in duration, it fits with patterns observed this year and in other recent years.

“The persistence of the pattern seems consistent with an amplified jet stream configuration that we expect to see occur more frequently as the Arctic continues to warm disproportionately,” Francis said in an email.

However, much of the evidence put forward thus far has shown correlations between sea ice loss and particular weather patterns, but has not revealed the direct physical connections and causation between the two, leading many mainstream climate scientists to be skeptical of the work so far. 

The state of the science on the links between Arctic warming and weather extremes in the midlatitudes can be likened to a court case. Scientists have gathered reams of mainly circumstantial evidence to prove a suspect’s guilt, or in this case, the existence of an Arctic warming link. But such evidence, which comes in the form of published studies in peer reviewed scientific journals, may not be enough to convince a jury quite yet.

Regardless of the strength of the Arctic connection, global average temperature trends tell a clear and compelling story of a warming planet, which one short-lived cold streak is not going to alter.

Since 1970, winters have been warming rapidly in the majority of the lower 48 states. The five most rapidly warming states, with winter average temperatures increasing by more than 4°F, were Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin, according to a 2013 Climate Central analysis. Many of those same states are bearing the brunt of the ongoing cold outbreak, but had the climate not warmed so much during the past few decades, it’s possible that this event would be even colder in those areas.

November, the most recent month for which global data is available, was the warmest such month on record, all but guaranteeing that 2013 will go down on record as one of the top 10 warmest years, if not in the top 5. In Australia, 2013 was the continent’s hottest year on record.

Russia had its warmest November since records began there in 1891, with some parts of the country, including Siberia and the Arctic islands in the Kara Sea, seeing temperatures that were more than 14°F above the typical monthly average. In contrast, not a single region of the world was record cold for the month.

November also brought the string of consecutive above-average months on the planet to 345, with it being the 37th straight November with above-average temperatures compared to the 20th century average. That means that anyone younger than 28 has never experienced a colder-than-average month, globally speaking. The last below-average November global temperature was in November 1976, and the last below-average global temperature for any month was February 1985, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

As unusual as the current cold is for the U.S., the global picture shows that January is not on course to break that 28-year warm streak, either. Even the U.S. may end up having a warmer-than-average month, if the latest outlooks prove correct.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/polar-vortex-in-u.s.-may-be-valid-example-of-global-warming-16927 (http://www.climatecentral.org/news/polar-vortex-in-u.s.-may-be-valid-example-of-global-warming-16927)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 23, 2014, 10:04:32 PM
You crazy liberals are f**king hilarious!!!

That's the only reason why I bother reading some of these posts any more.  To get a good laugh!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 06:07:10 AM
Funny - I read the Bible and took something totally different out of it than you did.

Why would you think I would take the same thing from your bogus science studies?

Face it - Global Warming is your Religion, you have faith in it.  Unfortunately yours is a false god.

Religion isn't backed up by facts and peer reviewed studies.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 06:08:56 AM
You crazy liberals are f**king hilarious!!!

That's the only reason why I bother reading some of these posts any more.  To get a good laugh!

And you conservatives are the reason why I would rather (edited for expilcit content).  The ignorance in Monroe County is shocking and rather disgusting. I am very thankful I don't have children because I wouldn't want them living in a world with people like you.

Do you people actually understand the ridicule that people from Monroe get?  Do you know how we are thought of by those outside of the county?  I do. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 24, 2014, 06:40:37 AM
And you conservatives are the reason why I would rather (edited for expilcit content).  The ignorance in Monroe County is shocking and rather disgusting. I am very thankful I don't have children because I wouldn't want them living in a world with people like you.

Do you people actually understand the ridicule that people from Monroe get?  Do you know how we are thought of by those outside of the county?  I do. 

I suggest you move to Berkeley then if you feel that way.

There are many people there who are also confused about the he/she thing.

They also share your sense of moral and intellectual superiority.  You would probably be considered sub-par there.

Don't say I never gave you good advice!

 ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on January 24, 2014, 07:03:44 AM
In today's screwed up society, it's possible to put a 'spin' on anything, no matter how insane or inane.....
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 07:53:15 AM
And you conservatives are the reason why I would rather (edited for expilcit content).  The ignorance in Monroe County is shocking and rather disgusting. I am very thankful I don't have children because I wouldn't want them living in a world with people like you.

I do have children and to be honest, regardless if someone is liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, green party, tea party, libertarian, socialist, communist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, black, white, brown, Asian or . . . . whatever . . . provided they are Human and obey law, I am not impacted by the presence they have on this earth (in terms of raising my child) and neither are my children as it is the responsibility of the children's mother and I to raise, education, guide, assist and nurture our children not the communities. 

Monroe County is filled with "ignorant" people, that is the supposition, yes?  Why because they disagree with your opinions and of course it is not possible for your positions to be incorrect so, viola, "they" are ignorant. 

Except - Monroe (City and County) has a wonderful and rich history of terrific individuals who have done amazing works in the field of music, education, social-welfare and even social justice. 

You know, I actually disagree with Livewire's assessment of so called liberals but in this instance his  assessment did not make a domain assumption about an entire region of people. 

As a side note, as a learned man, I pray you understand that the term conservative has more than just one meaning just as liberal does.  So don't believe that all conservatives (just as liberals) are the same, they are not.   

Do you people actually understand the ridicule that people from Monroe get?  Do you know how we are thought of by those outside of the county?  I do. 

Let me see, just in Michigan I have lived in; Monroe, Clinton, Adrian, Ann Arbor, Saline, and Ypsilanti. In Michigan, I have worked (had an office or attended court proceedings) in Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor, Saginaw, Flint, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Monroe.

Outside of the great State of Michigan I have lived in; Alaska (Fairbanks, Anchorage and Delta), North Carolina (Fayetteville), South Carolina (Columbia), Kentucky (Richmond and Berea), Ohio (Toledo) and Washington (Seattle).  I have stayed for extended periods of time (more than 60 days) in: Texas (Dallas / Ft. Worth), California (Monterey Bay), Georgia (Columbus), Virginia (Bowling Green, Richmond) and Oklahoma (Lawton).  I guess the point is that I have talked to, worked with and lived around, lots of people outside of Monroe City / County in my life. 

Do some folks look down on Monroe?  Sure, some do and I have ran into more than one expatriate (loosely speaking of course) that had bad things to say about Monroe. 

But you know, that isn't a "Monroe" thing, right?  The neighbor to the north of me (I live in Lenawee County outside of Adrian) was born, raised, and educated (HS, College) in Ann Arbor.  She has family that still live in the city yet she despises what it has become and has little good to say about the people or political structure as she believes it is ran by talky, touchy, feely but uncommitted conservatives (her assessment, not mine - I don't follow Ann Arbor politics).  Of course, she is in her late 60's and has a "different" view of what once was than I do. 

The point here is that it is easy to find people who agree with the assessment you hold and to surround yourself with like minded individuals.  Those dreaded "conservatives" do it every day from 12-3 (Rush Limbaugh), not to mention Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck.  But if one does that it is like living in an echo chamber isn't it.  Of course, I know that you are not doing that and are only relating what others say about Monroe to educate those of us who are too ignorant or uninformed with the hope that maybe we will enlighten ourselves. 

I answered the question of "do I know" regarding others opinion of Monroe.  So let me ask this; do you know the amazing history of Monroe County?  How about a good understanding of a "safe" community (as you brought up children)?  Instead of looking down your noise at people in Monroe and saying, "gee, they sure are ignorant, isn't they", step back and honestly look at the wonderful people, opportunities, history and ever changing dynamics that is a very vibrant City and County.  I am proud of Monroe. 

All of that said, FScott12345, may I relate to you something of "my" life experience.  I have worked as a  social worker with Monroe Community Mental Health Authority, Catholic Social Services and Holy Cross Children's Services.  Typically, I work with folks that identify themselves as "liberal" and many as "democrats".  On a personal level I identify myself as a conservative but not along the lines of what folks seem to believe a conservative is (Rush, Hannity, Levine and so on).  I like to read and find myself more in agreement with folks like Kirk, Buckley, Friedman and the like. 

I shared the above to place in context my personal experience based upon my years of education and work.  The one glaring difference I have found between so called (self identified) liberals / democrats and me as a  conservative, is that I don't look down on or seek to change others based upon what I perceive as a lack of education or social standing.  Instead, I have always looked at people under the criteria of; are they happy, healthy, safe and secure.  If they are than what possible right do I have to place a judgment upon them simply because they do not live, think or vote they way I do. 

In general, this is what you have done with your posting.  Instead of asking if people were happy, healthy, safe and secure, you judged them to be ignorant based upon your beliefs.  Now understand that Livewire did the same thing but Live does not represent himself as someone who does the research and is culturally and socially tuned into our society, you do.

Anyhow - take if for what it's worth - just my opinion.   
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on January 24, 2014, 07:59:15 AM
In a dynamic environment, things will change.

(http://calwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Global-cooling-time-magazine.gif)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 24, 2014, 08:24:26 AM
And you conservatives are the reason why I would rather (edited for expilcit content).  The ignorance in Monroe County is shocking and rather disgusting. I am very thankful I don't have children because I wouldn't want them living in a world with people like you.

Do you people actually understand the ridicule that people from Monroe get?  Do you know how we are thought of by those outside of the county?  I do.

Lmfao!!!!!  Another good laugh!!! Thanks, man, I needed that!!!

Hey dude, take your holier-than-thou attitude, and look in the mirror!

Then look at your drivers license.  YOU LIVE HERE!!!!

Not only do you live here, but you made a conscious effort to buy a house here!!!

"Ignorance in Monroe county" is right, dude!!!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 08:35:48 AM
Yes I live here and that was a huge mistake.  I should have stayed in San Diego when I had the chance.   Unfortunately I can't unload the dump of house I bought or I would, and I would get as far away as humanely possible.

It's not a holier than thou attitude if I get pissed at ignorance.  What is holier than thou is that people on here seem to believe they are smarter than nearly 10000 scientists. 

Unfortunately I am not my brother.  He can just ignore people like you and go about his day.  I am a masochist.   I feel the need to attempt to educate.   I feel the need to bring in different cultural perspectives.  I want to change Monroe for the better.   Unfortunately the old saying appears to be true..."When Custer left he said, 'Don't change anything until I get back' so we didn't."
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 08:41:28 AM
I suggest you move to Berkeley then if you feel that way.

There are many people there who are also confused about the he/she thing.

They also share your sense of moral and intellectual superiority.  You would probably be considered sub-par there.

Don't say I never gave you good advice!

 ;D

My ex girlfriends mother is a professor at MSU.  When we first met she grilled me on a variety of subjects to see if I was suitable for her daughter.  Later she stated she grilled me harder than any other boyfriend because I grew up in one of the geographic locations that she was weary of.  To this day she calls me asking to give her a grandchild.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 24, 2014, 08:48:06 AM
Back on topic.  Why won't you answer these questions?

1. Given that the president stopped giving that speech telling Americans to examine Spain if they want to see how the “clean energy economy” works  -- by the way, why doesn’t he give that speech any more? -- where has it worked?

Please be specific. A country’s name will do. And, if you could go ahead and explain why the rest of the world hasn’t noticed the miracle, too, that would be great.

2. If we ignore the ever-expanding body of countervailing evidence (“reality”), accept everything you say, and impose your carbon tax and replicate Spain’s economy and all of those other great ideas: will the temperature be any different?

Are you aware that all of your climate models -- we call it a “consensus” -- say the temperature after cap-n-trade or a carbon tax would be whatever it would be without cap-n-trade, or a carbon tax? That nothing ever proposed would detectably impact climate, even accepting all of your assumptions, even the ones already proved wrong?

3. How many jobs are the right number to kill for no impact on climate? While I have you, same thing for, um, the right number of unnecessary deaths from energy poverty?

And concensus is not science.  What part of that statement do you not understand?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 08:52:43 AM
I do have children and to be honest, regardless if someone is liberal, conservative, democrat, republican, green party, tea party, libertarian, socialist, communist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, black, white, brown, Asian or . . . . whatever . . . provided they are Human and obey law, I am not impacted by the presence they have on this earth (in terms of raising my child) and neither are my children as it is the responsibility of the children's mother and I to raise, education, guide, assist and nurture our children not the communities. 

Monroe County is filled with "ignorant" people, that is the supposition, yes?  Why because they disagree with your opinions and of course it is not possible for your positions to be incorrect so, viola, "they" are ignorant. 

When I use facts, logic, and cite sources they're usually not called opinions.

Quote
Except - Monroe (City and County) has a wonderful and rich history of terrific individuals who have done amazing works in the field of music, education, social-welfare and even social justice. 

You know, I actually disagree with Livewire's assessment of so called liberals but in this instance his  assessment did not make a domain assumption about an entire region of people. 

As a side note, as a learned man, I pray you understand that the term conservative has more than just one meaning just as liberal does.  So don't believe that all conservatives (just as liberals) are the same, they are not.

You are right.  Not all are the same.  I look at what some people consider to be the left and I scoff at them for not doing more.  Then again, I scoff at myself for not doing more.     

Quote
Let me see, just in Michigan I have lived in; Monroe, Clinton, Adrian, Ann Arbor, Saline, and Ypsilanti. In Michigan, I have worked (had an office or attended court proceedings) in Detroit, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor, Saginaw, Flint, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Monroe.

Outside of the great State of Michigan I have lived in; Alaska (Fairbanks, Anchorage and Delta), North Carolina (Fayetteville), South Carolina (Columbia), Kentucky (Richmond and Berea), Ohio (Toledo) and Washington (Seattle).  I have stayed for extended periods of time (more than 60 days) in: Texas (Dallas / Ft. Worth), California (Monterey Bay), Georgia (Columbus), Virginia (Bowling Green, Richmond) and Oklahoma (Lawton).  I guess the point is that I have talked to, worked with and lived around, lots of people outside of Monroe City / County in my life. 

Do some folks look down on Monroe?  Sure, some do and I have ran into more than one expatriate (loosely speaking of course) that had bad things to say about Monroe. 

But you know, that isn't a "Monroe" thing, right?  The neighbor to the north of me (I live in Lenawee County outside of Adrian) was born, raised, and educated (HS, College) in Ann Arbor.  She has family that still live in the city yet she despises what it has become and has little good to say about the people or political structure as she believes it is ran by talky, touchy, feely but uncommitted conservatives (her assessment, not mine - I don't follow Ann Arbor politics).  Of course, she is in her late 60's and has a "different" view of what once was than I do. 

The point here is that it is easy to find people who agree with the assessment you hold and to surround yourself with like minded individuals.  Those dreaded "conservatives" do it every day from 12-3 (Rush Limbaugh), not to mention Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, and Glenn Beck.  But if one does that it is like living in an echo chamber isn't it.  Of course, I know that you are not doing that and are only relating what others say about Monroe to educate those of us who are too ignorant or uninformed with the hope that maybe we will enlighten ourselves. 

I answered the question of "do I know" regarding others opinion of Monroe.  So let me ask this; do you know the amazing history of Monroe County?  How about a good understanding of a "safe" community (as you brought up children)?  Instead of looking down your noise at people in Monroe and saying, "gee, they sure are ignorant, isn't they", step back and honestly look at the wonderful people, opportunities, history and ever changing dynamics that is a very vibrant City and County.  I am proud of Monroe.

Monroe is a blackhole.  It has subpar education and the greatest historical figures we have is someone who committed genocide against the Native Americans and a boxer.  Yeah, we have some good food and low taxes, but that's about it.

I have been as far away as Austrailia and had people look down on me because I grew up in Monroe.  The only slightly nice thing they said was "Well at least you didn't grow up in Holland."

Quote
All of that said, FScott12345, may I relate to you something of "my" life experience.  I have worked as a  social worker with Monroe Community Mental Health Authority, Catholic Social Services and Holy Cross Children's Services.  Typically, I work with folks that identify themselves as "liberal" and many as "democrats".  On a personal level I identify myself as a conservative but not along the lines of what folks seem to believe a conservative is (Rush, Hannity, Levine and so on).  I like to read and find myself more in agreement with folks like Kirk, Buckley, Friedman and the like. 

I shared the above to place in context my personal experience based upon my years of education and work.  The one glaring difference I have found between so called (self identified) liberals / democrats and me as a  conservative, is that I don't look down on or seek to change others based upon what I perceive as a lack of education or social standing.  Instead, I have always looked at people under the criteria of; are they happy, healthy, safe and secure.  If they are than what possible right do I have to place a judgment upon them simply because they do not live, think or vote they way I do.

You're a passive person then.  I get it.  I used to be that way to.  That's fine if you want to live your life that way, but I will do everything in my power to sway people towards further educating themselves they have little understanding of.  As I have said before, I have a lot of free time to do research.  I'm no expert on any one thing, but I have a good grasp of many. 

Quote
In general, this is what you have done with your posting.  Instead of asking if people were happy, healthy, safe and secure, you judged them to be ignorant based upon your beliefs.  Now understand that Livewire did the same thing but Live does not represent himself as someone who does the research and is culturally and socially tuned into our society, you do.

Anyhow - take if for what it's worth - just my opinion.

Here's the thing.  I don't care if you're happy or healthy.  That's on your own.  Life, death, and other oddities of the space-time continuum are of little concern to me.  I'm a chaotic good person.  It rubs people the wrong way, but it also makes others VERY happy because I say the things they are afraid to.  The reason why I'm so passionate about this is that your ideas and thoughts affect me and my surroundings.  Denying climate change, refusing to understand logic....those are deadly things.  Those are deadly things that affect me and my survival. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 08:53:09 AM
FScott12345,

I would actually love to respond to your posting (615) but honestly, I don't think a clear, concise response is possible when I have no idea of who the response would be directed to. 

Unfortunately I am not my brother. 

You're confusing me with my sister. This is actually Shaggy.    

My ex girlfriends mother is a professor at MSU.  To this day she calls me asking to give her a grandchild.

I would suggest that this confusion be cleared up so that posters will know exactly whom they are exchanging ideas with as you have said (in post 615 and elsewhere) there is a big difference between you and your brother. 

If you are unable to see the arrogance you have displayed so far than I really don't know what to say.  I, for one, don't look down on others regardless of the intelligence they may or may not have.  I have seen plenty of first year grad students that do this and some are even silly enough to continue doing so once they began working.  To me, I always saw this as saying more about them then it was about those whom they would judge.  Again, that is just me. 

Anyhow - consider clearing up which position the postings come from so that people can know if it comes from the personality that wishes to have a conversation or the one that seeks to cast others as ignorant while saying they want to educate them - it would help.  Thanks. 

Note:  In terms of the last quote regarding and ex-girlfriend and her mothers desire that you provide her a grandchild.  I am of course taking a sexist view that she is asking a male to impregnate her daughter and provide her with a grandchild that would have all of your wonderful intellect and amazing insight.  It is, I concede, possible that she is actually asking that you (were you a woman), be artificially inseminated  (possibility from someone she is related to) so that you may carry and provide her with a grandchild which again would have the same wondrous qualities. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 08:53:54 AM
Back on topic.  Why won't you answer these questions?

1. Given that the president stopped giving that speech telling Americans to examine Spain if they want to see how the “clean energy economy” works  -- by the way, why doesn’t he give that speech any more? -- where has it worked?

Please be specific. A country’s name will do. And, if you could go ahead and explain why the rest of the world hasn’t noticed the miracle, too, that would be great.

2. If we ignore the ever-expanding body of countervailing evidence (“reality”), accept everything you say, and impose your carbon tax and replicate Spain’s economy and all of those other great ideas: will the temperature be any different?

Are you aware that all of your climate models -- we call it a “consensus” -- say the temperature after cap-n-trade or a carbon tax would be whatever it would be without cap-n-trade, or a carbon tax? That nothing ever proposed would detectably impact climate, even accepting all of your assumptions, even the ones already proved wrong?

3. How many jobs are the right number to kill for no impact on climate? While I have you, same thing for, um, the right number of unnecessary deaths from energy poverty?

And concensus is not science.  What part of that statement do you not understand?

I gave you a link with all answers to those questions.  Not to mention the fact the source of your material is, and has been known to be, flawed.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 09:23:41 AM
When I use facts, logic, and cite sources they're usually not called opinions.

But that is not what you did in your response to Livewire which is all I am addressing.  There was no presentation of facts but your opinion.  Just because you believe it does not make it a fact but your faith, belief. 

Monroe is a blackhole.  It has subpar education and the greatest historical figures we have is someone who committed genocide against the Native Americans and a boxer.  Yeah, we have some good food and low taxes, but that's about it.

You know very little about Monroe if that is all you believe.  Tell me, what sitting State Senator died in Battle and where?  Tell me what was the percentage of blacks in Monroe County 20 years after the Civil War and what percentage of the Monroe population accounted for the entire population of Blacks in Michigan?  Tell me what Dove Award Winning recording artist was born and raised in Monroe? 

The point, you can chose to see Monroe and those in it as you do, "ignorant" or you can actually learn the history of Monroe and be amazed by it.  Your choice. 

I have been as far away as Australia and had people look down on me because I grew up in Monroe.  The only slightly nice thing they said was "Well at least you didn't grow up in Holland."

Really - while in the land of down under you ran into someone that knew Monroe, Michigan!  Really.  WOW - that is amazing because in all of my years, I ran into one person (in Texas) that knew where Monroe was.  I always had to say, "it's a small town south of Detroit and north of Toledo". 

Wait, wait . . no, you ran into more than one as, "people" and "they said" implies multiple.  Hum.  Wow.  That truly is amazing.  Of course maybe "they" owned a La-Z-Boy and had researched the foundation of the company.  Maybe they were racing fans and recalled the great Monroe Shock's.  Maybe they were Mary Tyler Moore show fans and researched Valarie Harper.  Maybe they where fans of Mother Jones and researched her time living in Monroe.  Maybe they were fans of black painter, Robert S. Duncanson and had done some looking into his life, death and burial.  Anyhow . . . considering the amazing history of Monroe, I guess it is possible that folks in Australia have some awareness of our little hamlet. 

I do feel left out that in all my travels CONUS and OCONUS, I never had that experience.  But we all have different life events. 

(BTW; fixed the spelling of Australia). 

You're a passive person then.  I get it.  I used to be that way to.  That's fine if you want to live your life that way, but I will do everything in my power to sway people towards further educating themselves they have little understanding of.  As I have said before, I have a lot of free time to do research.  I'm no expert on any one thing, but I have a good grasp of many. 

There you go again, making judgments.  I did not say I would not encourage, assist, or direct folks to improve themselves, did I.  What exactly do you think a social worker would do - you have a good grasp on many things, yes.  No, FScott12345, what I said is that I don't judge them based upon social standing or education.  I believe in the idea of "as is, where is" and accept that person on those terms.  You should consider reading the book "Bridges out of Poverty" if you want to understand the concept.  (actually, MCOP does the seminar). 

Here's the thing.  I don't care if you're happy or healthy.  That's on your own.  Life, death, and other oddities of the space-time continuum are of little concern to me.  I'm a chaotic good person.  It rubs people the wrong way, but it also makes others VERY happy because I say the things they are afraid to.  The reason why I'm so passionate about this is that your ideas and thoughts affect me and my surroundings.  Denying climate change, refusing to understand logic....those are deadly things.  Those are deadly things that affect me and my survival. 

See, your actually confused or confusing or maybe just simply full of so much hubris that you can't see the inconsistencies with what you say.  Of course it is also possible that there are two individuals posting under one account and this causes the confusion, I don't know and won't speculate. 

If you don't care about others health than why be concerned about climate change or abortion.  Ah, it would be that overwhelming sense of self value and hubris, right?  No, I don't believe that at all but - whatever. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 24, 2014, 09:26:35 AM
OK, I read  the article.  No where did it answer those questions.  Please go ahead and copy those answers if you can.  And what difference does it make where the questions came from.

The IPCC report has been proven to be full of lies.  For every article you have that supports agw, I can find one that debunks it.  Why you think we're killing the planet is beyond me.  And your solutions are........shut up.

The economy is tanking, we're heading towards a collapse and you're concerned about the environment?  You really need to reasses your priorities.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 09:55:01 AM
But that is not what you did in your response to Livewire which is all I am addressing.  There was no presentation of facts but your opinion.  Just because you believe it does not make it a fact but your faith, belief.

OK, don't take my words for it.  I appreciate a skeptic since I am one.  Do the research.  Would you like me to point you to the papers I have read? 

Quote
You know very little about Monroe if that is all you believe.  Tell me, what sitting State Senator died in Battle and where?  Tell me what was the percentage of blacks in Monroe County 20 years after the Civil War and what percentage of the Monroe population accounted for the entire population of Blacks in Michigan?  Tell me what Dove Award Winning recording artist was born and raised in Monroe? 

Monroe is in the north.  It only makes sense that blacks would migrate here after the civil war especially considering it's geographic location with regards to water and other travel routes. 

Ahh Gospel....good stuff if you don't pay attention to the lyrics.  Rance Allen is the name you're looking for.

Quote
The point, you can chose to see Monroe and those in it as you do, "ignorant" or you can actually learn the history of Monroe and be amazed by it.  Your choice. 

Monroe has a lot of history.  I agree with that.  It's current incarnation isn't as polished as you would think though.

Really - while in the land of down under you ran into someone that knew Monroe, Michigan!  Really.  WOW - that is amazing because in all of my years, I ran into one person (in Texas) that knew where Monroe was.  I always had to say, "it's a small town south of Detroit and north of Toledo". 

Wait, wait . . no, you ran into more than one as, "people" and "they said" implies multiple.  Hum.  Wow.  That truly is amazing.  Of course maybe "they" owned a La-Z-Boy and had researched the foundation of the company.  Maybe they were racing fans and recalled the great Monroe Shock's.  Maybe they were Mary Tyler Moore show fans and researched Valarie Harper.  Maybe they where fans of Mother Jones and researched her time living in Monroe.  Maybe they were fans of black painter, Robert S. Duncanson and had done some looking into his life, death and burial.  Anyhow . . . considering the amazing history of Monroe, I guess it is possible that folks in Australia have some awareness of our little hamlet.  [/quote]

Yup, I sure did.  They were foreign exchange students that came up and lived with some people in Ypsi.  They wanted to see the lake and their host parents drove them down and ran into a few of Monroe's finest citizens.

Quote
I do feel left out that in all my travels CONUS and OCONUS, I never had that experience.  But we all have different life events. 

(BTW; fixed the spelling of Australia). 

Thank you.


[/quote]There you go again, making judgments.  I did not say I would not encourage, assist, or direct folks to improve themselves, did I.  What exactly do you think a social worker would do - you have a good grasp on many things, yes.  No, FScott12345, what I said is that I don't judge them based upon social standing or education.  I believe in the idea of "as is, where is" and accept that person on those terms.  You should consider reading the book "Bridges out of Poverty" if you want to understand the concept.  (actually, MCOP does the seminar).  [/quote]

Sounds like an interesting read.  Poverty has never been my thing, but I'm willing to expand horizions.

[/quote]See, your actually confused or confusing or maybe just simply full of so much hubris that you can't see the inconsistencies with what you say.  Of course it is also possible that there are two individuals posting under one account and this causes the confusion, I don't know and won't speculate.[/quote]

I see no inconsistencies with what I post and neither to many of the other people who lurk on here and contact me via twitter or text. 

Quote
If you don't care about others health than why be concerned about climate change or abortion.  Ah, it would be that overwhelming sense of self value and hubris, right?  No, I don't believe that at all but - whatever.

No, those things directly affect me and those I care about.  That's why I'm so passionate about them.  When your ignorance invades my life that's when I stand up.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 10:18:01 AM
OK, don't take my words for it.  I appreciate a skeptic since I am one.  Do the research.  Would you like me to point you to the papers I have read? 

I believe you are greatly misunderstanding.  My response to you was your calling Monroe ignorant based upon Livewires response.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

Monroe has a lot of history.  I agree with that.  It's current incarnation isn't as polished as you would think though.

I don't pretend to understand how you think so please return the same.  Monroe has issue, no question - please tell me someplace that is immune to that.  We just see it different. 

Yup, I sure did.  They were foreign exchange students that came up and lived with some people in Ypsi.  They wanted to see the lake and their host parents drove them down and ran into a few of Monroe's finest citizens.

Taking your word for it, I can only say, that one exchange you had shows more about your acceptance of and belief in people you don't know and most likely will never see again (oh, wait, you guys have remained friends, I would wager) than you can possibly imagine. 

Just think, exchange students (who are limited in the mobility they have), "visit" Monroe and off that one exchange form an opinion about the entire community.  WOW - that isn't a little bigoted, is it?  Be honest.  Sure it is. 

Yet . . it that is the NEW standard (what exchange students think), I will trump you an exchange student from Brazil, one from Germany, one from Italy and one from Ireland - all of whom stayed with friends of mine in Monroe (well, one was in Bedford) and they all four loved Monroe and two of them have actually been back for a visit!  But - then again, that would be a silly standard also. 

I see no inconsistencies with what I post and neither to many of the other people who lurk on here and contact me via twitter or text. 

I didn't expect that you would but felt obligated to point it out.  I had no idea that a bb ran by the MEN with a record attendance of less than 500 (most on at one time - according to the site) has folks "tweeting" and texting.  Wow . . honestly, I thought I was bored at home with the boys!  Heck, at least I am engaged and not "lurking" with the need to comment by "tweet" and "text".  Anyhow. 

No, those things directly affect me and those I care about.  That's why I'm so passionate about them.  When your ignorance invades my life that's when I stand up.

Just exactly what part of my ignorance has invaded your life -- please. 

BTW; I'm being very sarcastic with my tone and frankly this is not normally who I am but the reality is that at this point - I think your post are mostly BS and I have no idea which individual (male, female, shaggy, forsythia) or personality that I'm exchanging postings with - the one who wishes to converse of the one who wishes to educate me because I'm from Monroe and ignorant. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 10:21:02 AM
Back on topic.  Why won't you answer these questions?

1. Given that the president stopped giving that speech telling Americans to examine Spain if they want to see how the “clean energy economy” works  -- by the way, why doesn’t he give that speech any more? -- where has it worked?

Please be specific. A country’s name will do. And, if you could go ahead and explain why the rest of the world hasn’t noticed the miracle, too, that would be great.

2. If we ignore the ever-expanding body of countervailing evidence (“reality”), accept everything you say, and impose your carbon tax and replicate Spain’s economy and all of those other great ideas: will the temperature be any different?

Are you aware that all of your climate models -- we call it a “consensus” -- say the temperature after cap-n-trade or a carbon tax would be whatever it would be without cap-n-trade, or a carbon tax? That nothing ever proposed would detectably impact climate, even accepting all of your assumptions, even the ones already proved wrong?

3. How many jobs are the right number to kill for no impact on climate? While I have you, same thing for, um, the right number of unnecessary deaths from energy poverty?

And concensus is not science.  What part of that statement do you not understand?


Climate change will create jobs.


http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/308155-imf-official-climate-change-will-create-jobs (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/308155-imf-official-climate-change-will-create-jobs)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 10:34:01 AM
I believe you are greatly misunderstanding.  My response to you was your calling Monroe ignorant based upon Livewires response.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

I apologize for misunderstanding you.  I find you confusing at times as well.  I based my response partially on what Live wrote.  The rest was from interactions with people throughout town.  There are a few bright spots.  I will admit that, but with the heroin problem various other crimes, and conservative mentality, it's not that great of place to live.

Quote
I don't pretend to understand how you think so please return the same.  Monroe has issue, no question - please tell me someplace that is immune to that.  We just see it different.

Agreed.

Quote
Taking your word for it, I can only say, that one exchange you had shows more about your acceptance of and belief in people you don't know and most likely will never see again (oh, wait, you guys have remained friends, I would wager) than you can possibly imagine. 

Just think, exchange students (who are limited in the mobility they have), "visit" Monroe and off that one exchange form an opinion about the entire community.  WOW - that isn't a little bigoted, is it?  Be honest.  Sure it is. 

Yet . . it that is the NEW standard (what exchange students think), I will trump you an exchange student from Brazil, one from Germany, one from Italy and one from Ireland - all of whom stayed with friends of mine in Monroe (well, one was in Bedford) and they all four loved Monroe and two of them have actually been back for a visit!  But - then again, that would be a silly standard also.

Met them in a bar in Darwin when I was down there in the Navy.  Good guys, we bought each other drinks and that was that.  Hope they're doing well. 

Quote
I didn't expect that you would but felt obligated to point it out.  I had no idea that a bb ran by the MEN with a record attendance of less than 500 (most on at one time - according to the site) has folks "tweeting" and texting.  Wow . . honestly, I thought I was bored at home with the boys!  Heck, at least I am engaged and not "lurking" with the need to comment by "tweet" and "text".  Anyhow. 

I point out a few posts that I find absurd to my friends.  They get a giggle and begin to understand my frustration.  It doesn't happen all the time.  Plus they like it when I get riled up.  They say it makes me more entertaining in real life.

Quote
Just exactly what part of my ignorance has invaded your life -- please.

Your perpetuation of climate change denial.  Ignorance is easily spread.  It catches on faster than almost anything.  By denying climate change and doing nothing about it the earth is getting sicker and sicker. 

The perpetuation of your faith also affects me directly.  I have been personally beaten in the streets of Wyandotte when I was going through my Wiccan phase.  No police reports were filed, because the cop didn't see anything but me "tripping on a curb", but my girlfriend was given a jaywalking ticket.  My religion at the time taught peace.  Supposedly the Christian religion does as well. 

Quote
BTW; I'm being very sarcastic with my tone and frankly this is not normally who I am but the reality is that at this point - I think your post are mostly BS and I have no idea which individual (male, female, shaggy, forsythia) or personality that I'm exchanging postings with - the one who wishes to converse of the one who wishes to educate me because I'm from Monroe and ignorant.

My big sis is Forsythia.  She taught me a lot of different things.  And before Live goes off about me not having one, she's not a biological sister, but a dear friend whom I cherish dearly.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 24, 2014, 10:36:08 AM
That's all you got?  Really? 

Does this mean you can't or won't answer the questions.

Didn't think so.

And let's not even get into the number of deaths from EPA regualtions that force us to drive tiny unsafe vehicles.  Or force us to use hazerdous lightbulbs.  Or close companies because of coal regulations.  The list goes on and on, and all you got is "Climate change will create jobs".

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 10:53:45 AM
Climate change will create jobs.


[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/308155-imf-official-climate-change-will-create-jobs[/url] ([url]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/308155-imf-official-climate-change-will-create-jobs[/url])


I don't believe the article communicates what you think it does.  From the article it states, Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, said Thursday that climate change will drive job creation. 

What jobs did Ms. Lagarde say would be created? “But you know there will be areas of growth. You talk about green growth — that will be associated with particular jobs for which the training has not yet been invented and needs to be aggregated and put together,” Lagarde said Thursday. She also noted jobs associated with caring for aging populations. So it will create jobs that will need to be invented and training will need to be developed along with caring for the elderly.  Got it. 

But as Ms. Lagarde said, “Climate change will create jobs. It will create disasters before it creates jobs, but it will create jobs,” Lagarde said on the MSNBC program “Morning Joe.”  Ah, so it will create disasters first (what type disasters) are we talking economic, environmental, social, what?  I tried to find the text of the interview on MSNBC's Morning Joe quoted in the Hill link but was unsuccessful so I don't have an answer.   

Anyhow - this "cite" does not prove that jobs are or will be created nor is it a news story.  In truth, it is not even an OpEd but rather a blog posting about Ms. Lagarde's appearance on Morning Joe in June 2013 and her opinion as I would imagine an intelligent person such as the IMF head would have specific examples if they were discussing fact.  Of course, it is also possible that the Hill writer reported this exchange incorrectly - who knows.   

But, what do I know, I'm just an ignorant guy from Monroe. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/308155-imf-official-climate-change-will-create-jobs#ixzz2rKWqkINL (http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/308155-imf-official-climate-change-will-create-jobs#ixzz2rKWqkINL)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 11:03:39 AM
I apologize.  I'm at work right now and it can be a pain to do this over my phone.

Quote
Over the last four years, we've doubled the electricity we get from wind and solar. We've seen dramatic increases -- and dramatic savings -- from efficiency in our automobiles, buildings and appliances. Along the way, we've created more than 3.4 million jobs in renewable energy, energy efficiency and related fields, and injected billions of dollars into our economy in clean energy investments and energy efficiency savings.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-lederer/addressing-climate-change_10_b_3604955.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-lederer/addressing-climate-change_10_b_3604955.html)

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0730/EPA-head-Fighting-climate-change-will-create-more-jobs (http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0730/EPA-head-Fighting-climate-change-will-create-more-jobs)

Quote
That tension between environmental stewardship and economic health is a false dichotomy, McCarthy said. Between the EPA's founding in 1970 and 2011, emissions of air pollutants dropped 68 percent, McCarthy said, while the US domestic product grew 212 percent and the US population grew 52 percent.


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 11:05:41 AM
That's all you got?  Really? 

Does this mean you can't or won't answer the questions.

Didn't think so.

And let's not even get into the number of deaths from EPA regualtions that force us to drive tiny unsafe vehicles.  Or force us to use hazerdous lightbulbs.  Or close companies because of coal regulations.  The list goes on and on, and all you got is "Climate change will create jobs".

Sorry, I'm at work.  See the above post for more information.  If you want more than that I can give it to you.

Now on to those cars.  I drive one.  It's the black Scion IQ you see driving around town.  Great car, great gas mileage, and great safety.  I would take my little vehicle over a truck or SUV any day.  My buddy even spun it out and hit something doing about 20.  No damage to the car, no damage to him.  If you want to drive it let me know.  Everyone I know says it's a fun car to drive.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 11:17:48 AM
I apologize for misunderstanding you.  I find you confusing at times as well.  I based my response partially on what Live wrote.  The rest was from interactions with people throughout town.  There are a few bright spots.  I will admit that, but with the heroin problem various other crimes, and conservative mentality, it's not that great of place to live.
 

Every place as crime and diversity of thought.  If Monroe is not in a great place to live in your opinion that I would say that you have an obligation to assist in making the changes you believe would help or to leave and find the things that make you happy. 

I point out a few posts that I find absurd to my friends.  They get a giggle and begin to understand my frustration.  It doesn't happen all the time.  Plus they like it when I get riled up.  They say it makes me more entertaining in real life.

I don't understand, you get riled up - your sister seems to see you differently at 8:30 this morning when she posted: 

Unfortunately I am not my brother.  He can just ignore people like you and go about his day.  I am a masochist.   I feel the need to attempt to educate.   I feel the need to bring in different cultural perspectives.  I want to change Monroe for the better.   

Your perpetuation of climate change denial.  Ignorance is easily spread.  It catches on faster than almost anything.  By denying climate change and doing nothing about it the earth is getting sicker and sicker. 

When and where did I say there is not or has not been changes to the environment?  I have not done so and as a former board member with the River Raisin Institute (nonprofit committed to sustaining the environment) I would ask you not make assumptions on my beliefs. 

The perpetuation of your faith also affects me directly.  I have been personally beaten in the streets of Wyandotte when I was going through my Wiccan phase.  No police reports were filed, because the cop didn't see anything but me "tripping on a curb", but my girlfriend was given a jaywalking ticket.  My religion at the time taught peace.  Supposedly the Christian religion does as well. 

As a Christian who believes that I should live by faith and the examples set by my Lord and Savior, I ought to work to continue that faith indefinitely and to prolong the existence of it, right? 

The Christian faith is - but not all Christians are.  It is sad that you ran into those who live outside of Gods love, IMO.  BTW, have I done anything harmful to you because of your faith or lack of faith? 

My big sis is Forsythia.  She taught me a lot of different things.  And before Live goes off about me not having one, she's not a biological sister, but a dear friend whom I cherish dearly.

So who is posting and when . . . because it is not only confusing but . . . kind of odd to be honest - simply consider: 

Unfortunately I am not my brother.  

My ex girlfriends mother is a professor at MSU.  To this day she calls me asking to give her a grandchild.

You're confusing me with my sister. This is actually Shaggy.   

See what I mean . . .


Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 11:33:12 AM
 

Every place as crime and diversity of thought.  If Monroe is not in a great place to live in your opinion that I would say that you have an obligation to assist in making the changes you believe would help or to leave and find the things that make you happy.

Or attempt to rectify the problem.  That is what I'm doing. 

Quote
I don't understand, you get riled up - your sister seems to see you differently at 8:30 this morning when she posted: 

I was referring to my brother Name Failed.  That was not my sister posting that.  I could understand where you may be confused though.

Quote
When and where did I say there is not or has not been changes to the environment?  I have not done so and as a former board member with the River Raisin Institute (nonprofit committed to sustaining the environment) I would ask you not make assumptions on my beliefs. 

As a Christian who believes that I should live by faith and the examples set by my Lord and Savior, I ought to work to continue that faith indefinitely and to prolong the existence of it, right? 

Exactly.  You were deemed a steward of the earth.  Many of your kind don't practice what the Bible(see I read your other post and learned to proof read) preaches.

Quote
The Christian faith is - but not all Christians are.  It is sad that you ran into those who live outside of Gods love, IMO.  BTW, have I done anything harmful to you because of your faith or lack of faith? 

You haven't but your religion has.  The belief in Jesus has caused countless deaths and other crimes.  I have nothing against the individual person.  I have issue with the institution.  You are a standard, decent, Christian Apologist.  When you see people like the Westboro Baptist Church, you say, "Not all Christians are like that" and walk away.  You don't do anything to confront them because you hope the crazy will go away by itself. 

Then we can get into the issue of lack of taxation on Churches.  They sell religion and the US doesn't get to collect any of the sales tax.

Quote
So who is posting and when . . . because it is not only confusing but . . . kind of odd to be honest - simply consider: 

See what I mean . . .

I addressed this above.  I really hope that clarified things because you didn't know I had 2 biological brothers.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 11:52:24 AM
I apologize.  I'm at work right now and it can be a pain to do this over my phone.

[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-lederer/addressing-climate-change_10_b_3604955.html[/url] ([url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicole-lederer/addressing-climate-change_10_b_3604955.html[/url])

[url]http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0730/EPA-head-Fighting-climate-change-will-create-more-jobs[/url] ([url]http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/0730/EPA-head-Fighting-climate-change-will-create-more-jobs[/url])


You miss the point - just like you did with the article "4 States" from the USA Today / AP reference drilling and water contamination.  It is no longer an accident but it is intentional. 

In another thread you demanded "proof" and pontificated on your understanding of and admiration for science as a means to show how something does or does not exist.  I agree with that with regards to most "human" things.  However, when it is something you have "faith" is (Global Warming) you willingly post a Blog from the Hill which supports your opinion / faith. 

When it is pointed out that the article is a Blog and neither a "news story" with facts or an "OpEd" that contains specifics your response is to post two more articles.  Great - except just like the USA Today / AP article you can't un-ring the bell afterword's and say, "but, here is some more" as you made a connection to the article that does not exist once the actual article is read.  In the case of the USA Today / AP article the headline is misleading (see the breakdown of the data also) and in the case of the article on Ms. Lagarde it was nothing more than her opinion without any specific examples.  As someone who admires the concise use of science to show things you understand what is being communicated. 

Anyhow - the CS Monitor piece is also a "voices" piece that contains nothing but opinion and the EPA Chief does not mention a specific (or even broad market) that will grow thanks in part to any changes.  In truth there are only two statements about "jobs" in the entire piece and they are: 

"We need to cut carbon pollution to grow jobs," she added. "We need to cut carbon pollution to strengthen the economy. Let’s talk about this positively. Let’s approach this as an opportunity of a lifetime. Because there are too many lifetimes at stake to not embrace it this way – the way this country has always embraced its challenges: head on."

Great!  What industry will grow, how will it grow and what to we need to do?  You see this is political talk - all nice and with "hope" and zero specifics so far . . but there is one more quote from the EPA Head;   

"We need the economy to serve the needs of current and future generations. That’s where jobs will grow," McCarthy said.  

Ah, there is it.  Whew.  No wait, she said . . NOTHING, Zero, Zilch, Nada about the when, where, how, who and why.  So again, not something that produces or shows "scientific" understanding of how jobs will grow. 

But - the HuffPo article will redeem this, yes.  Well, not really but it does do a better job.  It is funny that the Head of the EPA could offer not JACK of substance but the Co-Founder of a Non-Profit (Nicole Lederer) was able to cite several examples of increased usage of wind energy and solar.  I compliment her on that. 

However, you knew this was coming (right), she also did not communicate if that growth were adding jobs to the community or if they were (or could) cause a displacement within the workforce.  Although, to be fair, considering she is not the EPA Head and is simply writing a blog for HuffPo, I don't know if I am being fair to expect that she does so.  I will say that her pontifications about "biofuel" growth is not holding up (Willie Nelson's truck stop aside) nor is the growth in next generation batteries (which btw; exactly how environmentally healthy is the mining for and transfer of this resources?). 

Anyhow . . . you get the point, I believe, even if you chose not to acknowledge it. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 24, 2014, 12:02:48 PM
Sorry, I'm at work.  See the above post for more information.  If you want more than that I can give it to you.


I didn't expect you to be able to answer the questions...from at work or from anywhere.

Glad you like your car.  Not sure many people would consider it safer than a truck.  I doubt the statistics would back up your claim, but then I'd rather not vere from the topic.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 12:08:02 PM
You miss the point - just like you did with the article "4 States" from the USA Today / AP reference drilling and water contamination.  It is no longer an accident but it is intentional. 

In another thread you demanded "proof" and pontificated on your understanding of and admiration for science as a means to show how something does or does not exist.  I agree with that with regards to most "human" things.  However, when it is something you have "faith" is (Global Warming) you willingly post a Blog from the Hill which supports your opinion / faith. 

When it is pointed out that the article is a Blog and neither a "news story" with facts or an "OpEd" that contains specifics your response is to post two more articles.  Great - except just like the USA Today / AP article you can't un-ring the bell afterword's and say, "but, here is some more" as you made a connection to the article that does not exist once the actual article is read.  In the case of the USA Today / AP article the headline is misleading (see the breakdown of the data also) and in the case of the article on Ms. Lagarde it was nothing more than her opinion without any specific examples.  As someone who admires the concise use of science to show things you understand what is being communicated.


What specific examples are needed?  We're seeing growth in renewable energy sectors. http://theenergycollective.com/silviomarcacci/267331/nearly-40000-new-green-jobs-created-across-america-during-2q-2013 (http://theenergycollective.com/silviomarcacci/267331/nearly-40000-new-green-jobs-created-across-america-during-2q-2013) Science is advancing in the fields of renewable sources to make them more efficient/have longer charge time. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523391/startup-thinks-its-battery-will-solve-renewable-energys-big-flaw/ (http://www.technologyreview.com/news/523391/startup-thinks-its-battery-will-solve-renewable-energys-big-flaw/)

There are a ton of other articles that show just that.  Not to mention it's common sense.

Quote
Anyhow - the CS Monitor piece is also a "voices" piece that contains nothing but opinion and the EPA Chief does not mention a specific (or even broad market) that will grow thanks in part to any changes.  In truth there are only two statements about "jobs" in the entire piece and they are: 

"We need to cut carbon pollution to grow jobs," she added. "We need to cut carbon pollution to strengthen the economy. Let’s talk about this positively. Let’s approach this as an opportunity of a lifetime. Because there are too many lifetimes at stake to not embrace it this way – the way this country has always embraced its challenges: head on."

Great!  What industry will grow, how will it grow and what to we need to do?  You see this is political talk - all nice and with "hope" and zero specifics so far . . but there is one more quote from the EPA Head;   

"We need the economy to serve the needs of current and future generations. That’s where jobs will grow," McCarthy said.  

Ah, there is it.  Whew.  No wait, she said . . NOTHING, Zero, Zilch, Nada about the when, where, how, who and why.  So again, not something that produces or shows "scientific" understanding of how jobs will grow.


When?  Now.  Renewable energy sources are growing.  Where, here.  If we would have taken steps 40 years ago we would have many more advances and would be ahead of Scandinavia in renewable energy production because we, especially in Michigan, have a strong manufacturing base and great universities to help advance technology.  How, wind, tidal, solar, geothermal.  Who?  Those who have incentives beyond environmental reasons.  We can easily convert abandoned auto factories into ones that make equipment to harness renewable energy sources.  That trickles down much like it does with the auto industry. 

Quote
But - the HuffPo article will redeem this, yes.  Well, not really but it does do a better job.  It is funny that the Head of the EPA could offer not JACK of substance but the Co-Founder of a Non-Profit (Nicole Lederer) was able to cite several examples of increased usage of wind energy and solar.  I compliment her on that. 

However, you knew this was coming (right), she also did not communicate if that growth were adding jobs to the community or if they were (or could) cause a displacement within the workforce.  Although, to be fair, considering she is not the EPA Head and is simply writing a blog for HuffPo, I don't know if I am being fair to expect that she does so.  I will say that her pontifications about "biofuel" growth is not holding up (Willie Nelson's truck stop aside) nor is the growth in next generation batteries (which btw; exactly how environmentally healthy is the mining for and transfer of this resources?). 

Anyhow . . . you get the point, I believe, even if you chose not to acknowledge it.


Displacement within the workforce has always happened so that shouldn't be a factor.  Plenty of people are going to North Dakota to get in on the oil boom similar to the thousands that migrated north from Tennessee and Kentucky during the 1970's auto boom. 

I agree, we need better battery technology.  MIT has released several papers on what needs to happen to take the next step with that.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 12:09:47 PM
I didn't expect you to be able to answer the questions...from at work or from anywhere.

Glad you like your car.  Not sure many people would consider it safer than a truck.  I doubt the statistics would back up your claim, but then I'd rather not vere from the topic.

I have given proof of job creation in the previous post.  I have yet to read Obama's speech, and I will do that when I get home.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 12:17:46 PM
Exactly.  You were deemed a steward of the earth.  Many of your kind don't practice what the Bible(see I read your other post and learned to proof read) preaches.

My kind?  Christian, former Baptist, former Catholic, divorced, heterosexual white males?  How about my kind, IMO, do in general work to be good companions to the earth and oh, my kind are humans. 

You haven't but your religion has.  The belief in Jesus has caused countless deaths and other crimes.  I have nothing against the individual person.  I have issue with the institution.  You are a standard, decent, Christian Apologist.  When you see people like the Westboro Baptist Church, you say, "Not all Christians are like that" and walk away.  You don't do anything to confront them because you hope the crazy will go away by itself. 

You misunderstand the structure of "faith" with those who have "faith".  The structure of Christianity is, by and large, good and does not harm to others.  Those how have "faith" can and are flawed and do commit acts that most would see as wrong. 

You assume to much regarding me.  Don't assume I would sit silently.  As a Conservative my joy in reading Edmund Burke is not diminished and it is Burke who wrote; “All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...” . 

You blame the "faith" because of the individual.  I blame the individual in spite of the faith.  Consider this - back in 1994, I worked for a Professor at Eastern Kentucky University and he was doing research for the State of Kentucky to examine the number of deaths on the roads of Kentucky.  In the process of gathering this information we looked at the vehicle being driven, number of people in it, age of driver and if drugs or alcohol were involved among other things.  After gathering this information and building the data sets one thing jumped out that we had fun (joking) about and that was more people were arrested for drunk driving a Ford Ranger Pick-Up.  So, was it Ford Motor Companies fault that they (at the time) sold one of the cheapest small pick-ups on the road and that more people in Kentucky were getting drunk and wrecking those trucks?  No, it was the individual that misused the tool and not the tool.  Same as Religion.

Not an apologist at all, just someone that uses logic to see that blaming an institution for the actions of an individual is neither appropriate or logical.  Can the institution act wrong and be subjected to scorn - sure but that ought to be done on an individual (case by case) examination.  Example; the Catholic Church was wrong for allowing individual Diocese to move individual Priest from Church to Church in an effort to avoid exposing abuse.  Was the entire Catholic Faith (institution) wrong - no, not at all.   

Then we can get into the issue of lack of taxation on Churches.  They sell religion and the US doesn't get to collect any of the sales tax.

I believe Churches should not be tax exempt - simple enough.  Of course, I also believe that many nonprofits should not be tax exempt also. 

I addressed this above.  I really hope that clarified things because you didn't know I had 2 biological brothers.

Kind of, sort of . . maybe. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 12:34:16 PM
My kind?  Christian, former Baptist, former Catholic, divorced, heterosexual white males?  How about my kind, IMO, do in general work to be good companions to the earth and oh, my kind are humans.

I was referring to your kind as Christians. 

Quote
You misunderstand the structure of "faith" with those who have "faith".  The structure of Christianity is, by and large, good and does not harm to others.  Those how have "faith" can and are flawed and do commit acts that most would see as wrong.

As you see it it is good.  Logically it is not.  Your God actually favors evil by it's lack of intervention in human lives.   

Quote
You assume to much regarding me.  Don't assume I would sit silently.  As a Conservative my joy in reading Edmund Burke is not diminished and it is Burke who wrote; “All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing...” . 

You blame the "faith" because of the individual.  I blame the individual in spite of the faith.  Consider this - back in 1994, I worked for a Professor at Eastern Kentucky University and he was doing research for the State of Kentucky to examine the number of deaths on the roads of Kentucky.  In the process of gathering this information we looked at the vehicle being driven, number of people in it, age of driver and if drugs or alcohol were involved among other things.  After gathering this information and building the data sets one thing jumped out that we had fun (joking) about and that was more people were arrested for drunk driving a Ford Ranger Pick-Up.  So, was it Ford Motor Companies fault that they (at the time) sold one of the cheapest small pick-ups on the road and that more people in Kentucky were getting drunk and wrecking those trucks?  No, it was the individual that misused the tool and not the tool.  Same as Religion.

Interesting study and I would love to read it, but not the same as religion.  Christianity as a whole is evil.  If Jesus existed he was probably a righteous dude.  I probably would have loved to hang out with him.  It doesn't change the fact that His Father, according to scripture, committed genocide on multiple occasions.  The 10 Commandments are extremely self indulgent and actually don't allow for a modern capitalist society.  By that I mean we should not covet, but capitalism advances by coveting things.  The Book which you abide by has countless contradictions, and if we were to live by It, divorce would not be allowed, slavery would still exist, and there would be a ton of stonings.

Quote
Not an apologist at all, just someone that uses logic to see that blaming an institution for the actions of an individual is neither appropriate or logical.  Can the institution act wrong and be subjected to scorn - sure but that ought to be done on an individual (case by case) examination.  Example; the Catholic Church was wrong for allowing individual Diocese to move individual Priest from Church to Church in an effort to avoid exposing abuse.  Was the entire Catholic Faith (institution) wrong - no, not at all.

In this specific case the majority of Catholics had no clue what was going on so those following the faith couldn't be blamed.  Once it was out and people continued to support the church monetarily, then yes those of that faith could be blamed.   

Quote
I believe Churches should not be tax exempt - simple enough.  Of course, I also believe that many nonprofits should not be tax exempt also.

We differ on that, but i respect your opinion. 

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 12:50:49 PM
As you see it it is good.  Logically it is not.  Your God actually favors evil by it's lack of intervention in human lives.   

Sure it is - even if you wish to not see / understand it.  Consider, the organization (as it is) Earth Liberation Front (ELF) were responsible for millions of dollars of property damage throughout North America.  Do I think that all environmentalist who may sympotize with the goal of ELF is "evil", no, not at all.  Do I blame the individuals who have done it and demand that the organization apologize if they promoted illegal acts - sure. 

God does not intervene in the world because of "mans" freewill.  Yes, tragedy will (and does) happen to even those who are unable to help themselves (children) - the Bible tells us this would happen.

Interesting study and I would love to read it, but not the same as religion.  Christianity as a whole is evil.  If Jesus existed he was probably a righteous dude.  I probably would have loved to hang out with him.  It doesn't change the fact that His Father, according to scripture, committed genocide on multiple occasions.  The 10 Commandments are extremely self indulgent and actually don't allow for a modern capitalist society.  By that I mean we should not covet, but capitalism advances by coveting things.  The Book which you abide by has countless contradictions, and if we were to live by It, divorce would not be allowed, slavery would still exist, and there would be a ton of stonings.

Well, there is a big difference between the Old and New Testament and God's Covent.  I imagine we will differ. 

Slavery and stoning do exist in the world today but alas, not in Christian Countries. 

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 12:59:04 PM
Sure it is - even if you wish to not see / understand it.  Consider, the organization (as it is) Earth Liberation Front (ELF) were responsible for millions of dollars of property damage throughout North America.  Do I think that all environmentalist who may sympotize with the goal of ELF is "evil", no, not at all.  Do I blame the individuals who have done it and demand that the organization apologize if they promoted illegal acts - sure. 

God does not intervene in the world because of "mans" freewill.  Yes, tragedy will (and does) happen to even those who are unable to help themselves (children) - the Bible tells us this would happen.

Why then did He interfere with the free will of the Pharaoh in Exodus 7:3 and 9:12?



Quote
Well, there is a big difference between the Old and New Testament and God's Covent.  I imagine we will differ. 

Slavery and stoning do exist in the world today but alas, not in Christian Countries.


Matthew 5:17
Quote
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 24, 2014, 01:01:19 PM
I have given proof of job creation in the previous post.  I have yet to read Obama's speech, and I will do that when I get home.

Ok, whatever.  I'm not sure what Obama's speech has to do with anything.  He lies every time he opens his mouth.

And what does job creation have to do with answering the above questions?

Can't wait to see you in the 'Price of obamacare' thread.  It would be a hoot to see you defend that monstrosity.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 01:11:10 PM
Ok, whatever.  I'm not sure what Obama's speech has to do with anything.  He lies every time he opens his mouth.

I'm not a fan of his either.  Believe it or not the far left, which I'm a part of, can't stand him either.  He wrote a lot of big checks his behind can't cash and they're taking him to task.  This is especially true with the media silence that has been placed on the Paypal 14, the NATO 3, and a few other political groups.

Quote
And what does job creation have to do with answering the above questions?

I'll go back and reread them.

Quote
Can't wait to see you in the 'Price of obamacare' thread.  It would be a hoot to see you defend that monstrosity.

The ACA has been a positive thing, but it hasn't gone far enough.  I want a system similar to Englands.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 01:21:39 PM
As I said in another thread, I won't debate the Bible it is an individual decision based upon personal faith. 

I will share my faith and why I believe as I do. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 01:24:48 PM
As I said in another thread, I won't debate the Bible it is an individual decision based upon personal faith. 

I will share my faith and why I believe as I do.

Ok...well I guess this part of the conversation is over.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 24, 2014, 02:12:43 PM
Just curious about something.  In  another thread you wrote: 

I to tend to look more kindly upon Satanists than anyone else.  I've always wished I had the testicular fortitude to actually participate in that "religion".  Attended a Ritual once.  It was pretty interesting.

But just expressed that you are: 

I'm not a fan of his either.  Believe it or not the far left, which I'm a part of, can't stand him either. 

But the Church of Satan does not reflect the traditional values or social desires of the "Left" be they "barely left", "middle left" or like you said you are, "far left".  The Nine Satanic Statements are: 

1.Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
2.Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
3.Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
4.Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
5.Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
6.Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
7.Satan represents man as just another animal (sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours), who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.
8.Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
9.Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.

And yet, you call the God of my religion vengeful - just say'n. 

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: blue2 on January 24, 2014, 02:41:00 PM
It's brutal out there right now with the wind blowing.  I guess wait until tonight when temp is around zero and wind still blows.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on January 24, 2014, 02:46:15 PM
It's brutal out there right now with the wind blowing.  I guess wait until tonight when temp is around zero and wind still blows.

Can you imagine how cold it would be, if we didn't have global warming to help us out?
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 24, 2014, 02:49:52 PM
I think h*ll may have frozen. :)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 24, 2014, 04:37:42 PM
Can you imagine how cold it would be, if we didn't have global warming to help us out?

Oh man.....

You are right.

I am glad mankind had the common sense to start global warming or we would really be out of luck right now.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 06:54:10 PM
Just watched the meteorologist on the NBC Nightly News state that there is a direct correlation between the weather we're having and the drought.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 07:11:15 PM
Just curious about something.  In  another thread you wrote: 

But just expressed that you are: 

But the Church of Satan does not reflect the traditional values or social desires of the "Left" be they "barely left", "middle left" or like you said you are, "far left".  The Nine Satanic Statements are: 

1.Satan represents indulgence instead of abstinence.
2.Satan represents vital existence instead of spiritual pipe dreams.
3.Satan represents undefiled wisdom instead of hypocritical self-deceit.
4.Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates.
5.Satan represents vengeance instead of turning the other cheek.
6.Satan represents responsibility to the responsible instead of concern for psychic vampires.
7.Satan represents man as just another animal (sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours), who, because of his “divine spiritual and intellectual development,” has become the most vicious animal of all.
8.Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.
9.Satan has been the best friend the Church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years.

And yet, you call the God of my religion vengeful - just say'n.

Funny you can't debate your own religion, but you seem to think you know a lot about others beliefs.  The far left has no issues with violence.   In many cases it's felt to be necessary in order for the greater good to succeed.   Now this violence is only tolerated during a state of revolution, but some believe man should be in a constant state of revolution.

The fact of the matter is that we do indulge.
The greater good is what is vital and therefore it must exist.
We seek wisdom.   It's one of the things we indulge in.
We can be very kind.
See above for vengeance.
The idea of Psychic vampires is ludicrous
We recognize man as just another animal.


What the left doesn't say is ok is screwing your father (story of Lot).  You want more screwed up examples of stuff in your bible? I was done, but apparently you werent...
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 07:23:10 PM
Science.time.com\2014\01\06\climate-change-driving-cold-weather\
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 24, 2014, 07:25:58 PM
Yep.

This exact weather pattern matches the Global Warming Scenario #3,987,038,321c. 

That proves that the Science of Global Warming is sound.

Now - if I would have not cut off the Catalytic Converter on my car in college it would have been like 10 F warmer today here and there wouldn't have been a drought in Cali, but I did, so there you go.

Read the Scenario.  It's all in there.

 ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on January 24, 2014, 07:31:25 PM
Science.time.com\2014\01\06\climate-change-driving-cold-weather\
And what was the reason they changed the narrative from global warming to climate change again? Oh wait, I know. So they could blame every climatalogical  anomaly on CLIMATE CHANGE!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 24, 2014, 07:40:05 PM
And what was the reason they changed the narrative from global warming to climate change again?

I believe the answer to that is discussing Global Warming when Lake Erie is frozen over for the first time in eons and the temperature outside is heading below zero AGAIN is ludicrous, so we will talk about Climate Change instead.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 07:42:16 PM
As more scientific evidence is gained models are changed.  This has happened with nearly every area of science.  Look at the way science used to view Radium compared to now.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on January 24, 2014, 07:47:37 PM
As more scientific evidence is gained models are changed.  This has happened with nearly every area of science.  Look at the way science used to view Radium compared to now.
Look over there; something shiney!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: FScott12345 on January 24, 2014, 08:48:51 PM
Yup.

Anyway you kids have fun.  I've  had fun but it's time to take another break. Been talking to a few friends about the conversations I've had on here.  Lots of laughs were had after they read some of the posts on here.  They did say i was being a bit mean at times, but understood how i could get frustrated.  So I'm going to apologize for that.   I'm usually a D-bag but have been a major one lately. I'll be back in a few month's to check up on you provided I'm not struck down by anything.  I would say "don't do anything I wouldn't do", but since most of you will be doing the exact opposite of what I would do, I'll just wish you the best.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 24, 2014, 09:28:06 PM
Oh - don't go away mad!

Don't you want to know what is shiny?

I do!

 ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on January 25, 2014, 08:56:38 AM
Funny you can't debate your own religion, but you seem to think you know a lot about others beliefs.  The far left has no issues with violence.   In many cases it's felt to be necessary in order for the greater good to succeed.   Now this violence is only tolerated during a state of revolution, but some believe man should be in a constant state of revolution.

The fact of the matter is that we do indulge.
The greater good is what is vital and therefore it must exist.
We seek wisdom.   It's one of the things we indulge in.
We can be very kind.
See above for vengeance.
The idea of Psychic vampires is ludicrous
We recognize man as just another animal.


What the left doesn't say is ok is screwing your father (story of Lot).  You want more screwed up examples of stuff in your bible? I was done, but apparently you werent...

I was not "debating" but asking if you saw the Nine Satanic Statements to be in conflict with the idea of being a far "leftist".  Sorry that you misunderstood that and more importantly, I did discuss my faith and the reason I held that faith at length - you demand proof and I can offer none that qualifies in your eyes. 

I never said I know "a lot" about others faith - I asked a simple question.  I will tell you that I have read and actually purchased the Satanic Bible back in the 80's  (it was more a, "I love Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, kind of thing") and it is still in a box in my garage someplace. 

I do like how asking a question; "are the Nine Satanic Statements in conflict with being a "far leftist" as you identify" turns into how "screwed up" the Christian faith maybe.  OK.   

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on January 25, 2014, 09:44:52 AM
In 2012—after writers for National Review and a prominent conservative think tank accused him of fraud and compared him to serial child molester Jerry Sandusky—climate scientist Michael Mann took the bold step of filing a defamation suit. The defendants moved to have the case thrown out, citing a Washington, DC, law that shields journalists from frivolous litigation. But on Wednesday, DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg rejected the motion, opening the way for a trial.

Although public figures like Mann have to clear a high bar to prove defamation, Weisberg argued that the scientist's complaint may pass the test. And he brushed aside the defendants' claims that the fraud allegations were "pure opinion," which is protected by the First Amendment:
“Accusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth are factual allegations. They go to the heart of scientific integrity. They can be proven true or false. If false, they are defamatory. If made with actual malice, they are actionable.”

Weisberg's order is just the latest in a string of setbacks that have left the climate change skeptics' case in disarray. Earlier this month, Steptoe & Johnson, the law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, withdrew as Steyn's counsel. According to two sources with inside knowledge, it also plans to drop National Review as a client.

The lawyers' withdrawal came shortly after Steyn—a prominent conservative pundit who regularly fills in as host of Rush Limbaugh's radio show—publicly attacked the former judge in the case, Natalia Combs Greene, accusing her of "stupidity" and "staggering" incompetence.

The lawsuit centers on Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph. In 1999, Mann and two colleagues charted 1,000 years worth of climate data, and found a steep uptick in global temperatures beginning in the 20th century. The graph, named for its iconic shape, became a potent, easy-to-grasp symbol of global warming. And it was featured prominently in the landmark 2001 report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which concluded that "the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years."

Pennsylvania State University, where Mann works, and at least six other institutions conducted separate investigations into the allegations of scientific misconduct. An independent probe commissioned by the University of East Anglia faulted the researchers for their bunker mentality, and found their responses "to reasonable requests for information were unhelpful and defensive." But none of the investigations turned up evidence of malfeasance or data manipulation. After completing its inquiry, the US Environmental Protection Agency posted a fact sheet on its website stating:

The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results…Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate-court-victory (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/01/michael-mann-climategate-court-victory)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on January 25, 2014, 09:45:21 AM
Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.
Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
Myth: The jury is still out on climate change and CRU emails undermine the credibility of climate change science overall.
Fact: Climate change is real and it is happening now. The U.S. Global Change Research Program, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have each independently concluded that warming of the climate system in recent decades is "unequivocal." This conclusion is not drawn from any one source of data but is based on multiple lines of evidence, including three worldwide temperature datasets showing nearly identical warming trends as well as numerous other independent indicators of global warming (e.g., rising sea levels, shrinking Arctic sea ice). Some people have "cherry-picked" a limited selection of CRU email statements to draw broad, unsubstantiated conclusions about the validity of all climate science.
Myth: The CRU emails and several errors found in the most recent IPCC report undermine the credibility of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Fact: The IPCC's primary conclusions are based on an assessment of thousands of individual studies and collective insights from the comprehensive climate science literature. Although many errors were alleged, EPA confirmed only two errors. The small number of documented errors are not central to IPCC's main conclusions or to EPA's Endangerment Finding. In a report of such magnitude, a few errors do not undermine the credibility of the entire work of the IPCC. The process used by the IPCC stands as one of the most comprehensive, rigorous, and transparent ever conducted on a complex set of scientific issues.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html (http://epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/myths-facts.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: ducksoup on January 25, 2014, 09:47:12 AM
confusing "weather" with "Climate" is the same as saying a child's water pistol is the same as an AR15. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 25, 2014, 11:51:36 AM
confusing "weather" with "Climate" is the same as saying a child's water pistol is the same as an AR15.

The police do that all the time.

It is a serious problem.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: old salt on January 27, 2014, 11:18:44 AM
The title of this article should tell you all you need to know.

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/ (http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/)

...but this part should explain the thousands of scientists who think consenus is science.

The scientists in environmental research laboratories, since they are not normally linked to any particular private industry, were forced to seek funds from other government departments. In turn this forced them to accept the need for advocacy and for the manipulation of public opinion.

The whole article is worth the read for those who are researching agw or whatever they are calling it these days.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on January 28, 2014, 11:50:18 AM
confusing "weather" with "Climate" is the same as saying a child's water pistol is the same as an AR15. 
And yet they are both in relationship to the proximity and effects of that giant mass called the SUN that we travel around.

It is very likely the Sun's effects on climate "change" are more than anything man has done.   yet many want to poo-poo it as if it doesn't really mean anything...   no profit in that theory.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 28, 2014, 12:06:25 PM
No profit, no opportunity to tax, no opportunity to control your populace.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Pax on January 28, 2014, 01:46:49 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X5xkFgPORcc/UuHX1EAM8EI/AAAAAAAAkNU/1znQTm8V2C8/s1600/1488687_617379724963921_783365288_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on January 29, 2014, 06:50:24 PM
Two irrefutable data points that prove that Global Warming is real.

Take that!

 ;D

Quote
More snow this week has made this month the snowiest January on re­cord for the Monroe County region and also one of the coldest. #Another 3 inches of snow Sun­day and at least 2 inches more on Monday helped the region set a record for snowfall in January. #The region has gotten at least 30 inches of snow so far this month, snapping the record of 28.3 inches set in January, 2005.

Read more at: [url]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jan/29/january-snow-breaks-record-monroe-county/[/url] ([url]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jan/29/january-snow-breaks-record-monroe-county/[/url])


Quote
Mercury ties record Monday #The mercury tied a record Monday and broke another low mark today in the region. Readings dipped to -4 Monday to tie the record set on Jan. 27, 1927, and Jan. 27, 1977. Temperatures reached -11 this morning at the Dundee Wastewater Treatment Plant, snapping the record of -8 set on this day in 1977. Surprisingly, a year ago the mercury hit a balmy 61 degrees, establishing a new high for Jan. 28. The record low for Jan. 29 is -19 set in 1977.

Read more at: [url]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jan/29/january-snow-breaks-record-monroe-county/[/url] ([url]http://www.monroenews.com/news/2014/jan/29/january-snow-breaks-record-monroe-county/[/url])
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on February 18, 2014, 04:15:09 PM
Thank God Obama is combating Global Warming - cause I am FREEZING MY A S S off here!

Quote
Upper Marlboro, Md. — Drawing a link between reduced fuel consumption and climate change, President Barack Obama said Tuesday that his administration will issue tougher fuel-efficiency standards for delivery trucks by March 2016.

Obama said helping these vehicles use less fuel would have the triple benefit of making the U.S. less dependent on imported oil, keeping more money in consumer pockets and reducing the greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming.

“It’s not just a win win. It’s a win, win, win,” Obama said at a Maryland distribution center for Safeway, where he was flanked by two delivery trucks. “You got three wins.”

Heavy-duty trucks make up just 4 percent of the vehicles on the nation’s roadways, he said, but are responsible for about 20 percent of the climate-changing gases that are spewed into the atmosphere by the transportation sector.

Obama said ordering the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency to develop new standards for the 2018 vehicle model year, and beyond, is an example of the kind of steps he intends to take on his own to bolster the economy when he thinks Congress isn’t doing its job.

The new fuel-efficiency rules would come on top of standards in place for the 2014-2018 model years.

Obama also said companies that want to join an existing public-private partnership focused on energy-efficient vehicles will get specialized resources and technical expertise from the Department of Energy.

Much of what Obama announced had already been made public, including by the president himself.

Obama discussed the need for new fuel-efficiency standards in last month’s State of the Union address, as well as in the climate change plan he announced last June.

Trucking industry representatives and environmental advocates welcomed his announcement.

“This announcement is another historic milestone for commercial vehicles and the many industries which depend on the efficient, reliable power of diesel and natural gas engines,” said Tom Linebarger, the chief executive and chairman of Cummins, who spoke on behalf of a trucking industry group that has worked with the administration to increase fuel efficiency for heavy-duty engines and vehicles.

Vickie Patton, general counsel for the Environmental Defense Fund, applauded the promised reductions in air pollution and oil consumption and the projected dollar savings to families and businesses that would come from more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Obama called Safeway a leader on the issue. He said the company has spent money on cleaner, more efficient trucks with improved aerodynamics, better tires and larger-capacity trailers, and encourages companies it hires to ship its products to do the same.

Obama had a change of heart after promoting incentives early in his administration primarily for electric vehicles. As a candidate in 2008, Obama called for getting 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the roads by 2015 — a goal that Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged last month is a “stretch” — and many think impossible to meet since there are less than 200,000 EVs and plug-ins on U.S. roads.

In early 2012, Obama wanted to broaden a government tax credit that was created to support electric vehicles. He now wants to include other types of advanced vehicles, including those that run on fossil fuels like compressed natural gas.

The United States has large reserves of natural gas, but few cars have been sold that run on it. While embraced by many states, some environmentalists raise concerns about the extraction methods.



From The Detroit News: [url]http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140218/AUTO01/302180032#ixzz2ti7D4vJb[/url] ([url]http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140218/AUTO01/302180032#ixzz2ti7D4vJb[/url])
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 20, 2014, 06:31:59 PM
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/4559b94404a818592ce72c4381907ce3/tumblr_n0ccem90Xa1qbxkjao1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on February 25, 2014, 12:47:28 AM
"Between 95 To 97% Of Scientists Agree Climate Change Is Happening NOW And It IS MAN MADE!"

"Between 95 To 97% Of Scientists Agree Climate Change Is Happening NOW And It IS MAN MADE!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldE_86WB9u0#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on March 15, 2014, 04:33:55 AM
Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks about climate change during an all night talkathon in the Senate.

Global Warming All-Nighter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Buup-hRoPY0#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on March 15, 2014, 05:34:41 AM
Is that the same Bernie Sanders who helped destroy the housing market?

I'm supposed to believe him on scientific "fact?"

Give me a break.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on March 15, 2014, 08:33:25 AM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/140313tomsteyerRGB20140314020311.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on March 17, 2014, 01:03:08 PM
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1941471_10152244494537708_193267118_o.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on March 17, 2014, 01:45:27 PM
Having lived in Alaska (Fairbanks and Anchorage) this is not the only time that parts of the route have been without snow.  Good picture but it's like saying that because we are having a harsh winter that global warming / climate change isn't happening, anecdotal at best, IMO. 
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on March 17, 2014, 02:51:02 PM
Having lived in Alaska (Fairbanks and Anchorage) this is not the only time that parts of the route have been without snow.  Good picture but it's like saying that because we are having a harsh winter that global warming / climate change isn't happening, anecdotal at best, IMO.
I hear that the reason Alaska was so warm and California has been in drought and the reason we have had such a cold winter is because the gulf stream has shifted. Alaska also had main roads close this year due to melting of snow causing avalanches onto their highways.

Either way, I also heard that either of us can take $5 and our opinions and get a small coffee at Starbucks. LOL
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Will Sweat on March 17, 2014, 03:16:49 PM
Shoot you can get a grande for less than that ;-).
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on March 17, 2014, 03:46:58 PM
Either way, I also heard that either of us can take $5 and our opinions and get a small coffee at Starbucks. LOL

You can also donate me that money that is burning a hole in your pocket and I will invest it in fighting Climate Change right here in Monroe, MI - including taking such on such local initiatives as watering my lawn to keep it green and lush to better change carbon dioxide into life giving oxygen and planting new bushes in my landscaping and trees in my yard.....

I can even issue you Genuine Monroe Native Carbon Credits so you don't have to feel so darn guilty next time you drive that fossil fuel powered automobile around town.

I give MUCH better terms than Al Gore last time I checked....  and you can come on by and visit your shrubbery or tree anytime you want - and make sure it is doing its job to save the planet.  Heck - I'll even give you that Grande coffee or a nice Sun Brewed Ice Tea (If in Season)....  on the house.

If you care to donate....  let me know.

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on March 17, 2014, 06:23:58 PM
My 100 dollars is in the mail...     
(http://americanmexorist.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obamamoney-11.jpg)
I'm paying with ObamaBucks   ;D
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on March 17, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
My 100 dollars is in the mail...     
([url]http://americanmexorist.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/obamamoney-11.jpg[/url])
I'm paying with ObamaBucks   ;D


I see your $2500 savings for Obamacare has finally arrived in the mail.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: toobad on March 19, 2014, 10:03:39 PM
Whatever happened to "Global Warming". :-X

Next man made fad please, the politicians have already cleaned up on the money to be made with this farce! ;)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on March 22, 2014, 09:06:49 AM
(http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/16/consensusproject_97percent.jpg.CROP.promovar-medium2.jpg)



Climate change is real. The globe is warming. The data show it, the effects are already happening, and when you talk to scientists who study it, they all know it, too.

Yet the public still seems to be confused over it, mostly due to the confusion sown by professional confusers. Polls asking the public what degree of consensus climate scientists have about global warming consistently underrate it; the truth is that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that the planet is heating up and that human activity is the cause.

We—and by that I mean scientists and science communicators—are not getting through to the public.

That’s why the American Association for the Advancement of Science—the world’s largest general science society—has put together a public information campaign called “What We Know.” The motivation behind it is not so much to be a compendium of facts, but instead to “present key messages for every American about climate change” as a way to hopefully show people the reality of what we’re doing to the Earth.

I think the idea behind the campaign is a good one. The problem right now isn’t any scientific debate or controversy, for there isn't one. Virtually all the doubt and arguing are being instigated by politically motivated groups and do not exist among actual climate scientists. Getting this across to the public is a crucial step in ousting head-in-the-sand politicians and marginalizing the denial groups that are massively overrepresented in the media.

I also think What We Know picked three key issues that do need to be hammered home.

One is that scientific consensus. The second is the risk of abrupt change in the climate, and the third is the need to act swiftly to lower the risk and cost of action. All three of these are important, and sometimes lost in the noise in the media.
More here:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/03/20/what_we_know_aaas_campaign_to_raise_public_awareness_of_global_warming.html (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/03/20/what_we_know_aaas_campaign_to_raise_public_awareness_of_global_warming.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on March 22, 2014, 06:57:13 PM
Want To Scare Your Friends? Show Them This Chart

"Last year, atmospheric carbon dioxide briefly crossed 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. However, it didn't cross that threshold until mid-May. This year's first 400 ppm reading came a full two months earlier this past week and the seeming inexorable upward march is likely to race past another milestone next month.

"We're already seeing values over 400. Probably we'll see values dwelling over 400 in April and May. It's just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever," said Ralph Keeling in a blog post.

Keeling runs a carbon dioxide monitoring program for Scripps Institute of Oceanography, a position he took over from his father who started it. The program takes daily measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, which sits at 11,141 feet on a volcano's northern flank."

www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHaepEIO-3s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHaepEIO-3s#)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on March 23, 2014, 11:04:53 AM
Gee if those scientist all agree -

What is their solution?   
Go back to living in caves... 8*


of course those same scientists won't tell you this cycle has occurred in the past... Pre-Human earth

Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on March 28, 2014, 09:54:12 PM
Finally proof POSITIVE from the Obama Administration that ALL global warming isn't MAN made.

 ;D

Quote
As part of its plan to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, the Obama administration is targeting the dairy industry to reduce methane emissions in their operations.

This comes despite falling methane emission levels across the economy since 1990.

The White House has proposed cutting methane emissions from the dairy industry by 25 percent by 2020. Although U.S. agriculture only accounts for about 9 percent of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, it makes up a sizeable portion of methane emissions — which is a very potent greenhouse gas.

Some of these methane emissions come from cow flatulence, exhaling and belching — other livestock animals release methane as well.

“Cows emit a massive amount of methane through belching, with a lesser amount through flatulence,” according to How Stuff Works. “Statistics vary regarding how much methane the average dairy cow expels. Some experts say 100 liters to 200 liters a day… while others say it’s up to 500 liters… a day. In any case, that’s a lot of methane, an amount comparable to the pollution produced by a car in a day.”

“Of all domestic animal types, beef and dairy cattle were by far the largest emitters of [methane],” according to an EPA analysis charting greenhouse gas emissions in 2012. Cows and other animals produce methane through digestion, which ferments the food of animals.

“During digestion, microbes resident in an animal’s digestive system ferment food consumed by the animal,” the EPA notes. “This microbial fermentation process, referred to as enteric fermentation, produces [methane] as a byproduct, which can be exhaled or eructated by the animal.”

It’s not just the dairy industry that the Obama administration is clamping down on. The White House is looking to regulate methane emissions across the economy from agriculture to oil and gas operations — all this despite methane emissions falling 11 percent since 1990.



Read more: [url]http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xJRPxfYD[/url] ([url]http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/28/white-house-looks-to-regulate-cow-flatulence-as-part-of-climate-agenda/#ixzz2xJRPxfYD[/url])
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on March 28, 2014, 10:00:18 PM
Bugs Bunny said it best; it is to laugh!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on March 28, 2014, 10:03:37 PM
What is amazing is that article wasn't on "The Onion"
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on March 29, 2014, 08:36:45 AM
Unbelievable.

There's more belching and flatulence coming from Ovomit than all the cows in America.  And people actually take him seriously.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on April 01, 2014, 02:09:18 PM
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/payn_c11752420140401120100.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on April 02, 2014, 09:44:28 AM

Quote
JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael Oppenheimer, what are the most important things that need to be done now? I mean, clearly, there’s a lot of conversation on cutting back carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions. What should the main focus be now coming off of this report?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: Well, my personal view is that the Obama administration has started the job of cutting emissions and ought to continue that by putting forth additional regulations which would basically eliminate carbon emissions from existing, coal-burning power plants.

Beyond that, what’s really important for this country is that we realize that our ability to cope with big climate events like Hurricane Sandy isn’t so good today. We’re having trouble dealing with today’s extreme events. How are we going to deal with more intense heat waves, potentially stronger tropical cyclones, and a higher sea level in the future if we can’t even handle today’s?

So very important for the government to get out there and get — help get Americans ready to deal with and cope with the climate challenges that are going to come ahead. And then the third thing would be leadership. The reason Americans are kind of uncertain about how much support they should give climate change is that, until recently, there hasn’t been much leadership on this issue and there’s still nothing out of Congress.

We need leadership from our governments at all levels, from cities up to the national government, to help us get together as a society, because this affects everyone, and organize to get this problem solved.


Gee the experts answer is to eliminate coal plants carbon emissions... 
then all will be well?   

Oh, wait they said leadership will solve the problems too...   

LOL  They only know how to blame - not how to correct.   
So according to the article - it's time to get ready for Armageddon.
Heat waves, drought...   

The only good news was that crop prices should rise based on this report... 
if anyone gives it credibility






=================================================
TRANSCRIPT

RELATED LINKS
Flood-prone South Florida considers proactive investment against rising seas
Can the U.S. compel global collaboration on climate change?
Kerry talks climate change during Asia trip
JUDY WOODRUFF: A closer look now at the specifics, and the questions raised by this from two people who worked on the report. Michael Oppenheimer is a coordinating lead author of it and a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University. And Patricia Romero Lankao of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, she was a lead author of a chapter about North America. She’s a sociologist who studies the societal impact of climate change.
And we welcome you both to the program.

Michael Oppenheimer, it seems one of the screaming headlines from this is that people need to pay attention. What had been felt to be in the future is happening now. How do you read the main conclusions today?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER, Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Princeton University: Right.

We’re already detecting some of the effects of climate change on the whole system we live in. We’re detecting changes in crop yields. We’re detecting changes in the frequency of heat waves, and heat waves kill, and we’re detecting the massive changes in globally important systems like the arctic or coral reefs, on which people’s lives depend and which the whole climate system depends.

So changes are happening and we need to get on doing something about it, both reducing the emissions that are causing the problem and learning to adapt, because some of the climate change is inevitable.

JUDY WOODRUFF: So, staying with you, Michael Oppenheimer, is this happening faster than scientists thought, or has it always been realized that it was going to be felt about this time?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: There are two statements in the report among many which I will single out that are different from the last time we went through this six-and-a-half years ago.

Number one, the discovery that there are more areas, far more areas in the world where crop yields have declined due to climate change, and many fewer areas where crop yields have increased, and that’s a bad sign, because, as — as we heard in the setup piece, for many decades, crop yields had been increasing at 10 percent or 15 percent per decade.

That trend has come to an end, in fact, so there’s no way to be optimistic about it, unless we change what’s going on out there. And the other point I will — thing I will point to is health impacts. Again, more people are in trouble or dying due to heat waves than are avoiding disease because we’re having somewhat warmer winters. So the balance is certainly shifting already. We’re seeing that. We’re sure of it, and that puts a big question mark about the future.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Patricia Lankao, who is feeling the effects of this?

PATRICIA ROMERO LANKAO, National Center for Atmospheric Research: Many North Americans are already feeling the effects of this.

As you can — as we found, the glaciers are retreating, and this is affecting water resources on the West Coast of the U.S. We are also — as Michael already said, we are experiencing mortality due to heat waves, as we could see when heat waves affected — hit Europe, killing about 35,000 people, mostly elderly.

And this is a call for the U.S. We are usually used to the idea that only the poor and the future generations will be affected by climate change, but what we have found in this report is that the impacts of climate change are widespread and are substantial for many things we in the U.S. value, such as forests, water resources, and species of animals and of plants that we so much love because they make our landscapes beautiful and amenable to a better quality of life.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Patricia Lankao, if you’re someone listening to this who hasn’t paid a lot of attention before now to climate change, hasn’t worried about it, thinking it’s far off in the future, what do you now start to think about?

PATRICIA ROMERO LANKAO: Well, what we need to start thinking about is not only climate change is having consequences for us and things we care about, but also that there are opportunities.

We evaluated many of the actions communities, water utilities and energy utilities, together with local governments in the U.S., are taking, and I see that that’s good news. We have challenges for sure. We know if that we do not act now to reduce the impacts, to reduce emissions and to also better prepare our communities to deal with these impacts, we will be negatively affected.

So there — there is a closing window of opportunity that we see we need to use and use it now. We need to act now.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Michael Oppenheimer, what are the most important things that need to be done now? I mean, clearly, there’s a lot of conversation on cutting back carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions. What should the main focus be now coming off of this report?

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: Well, my personal view is that the Obama administration has started the job of cutting emissions and ought to continue that by putting forth additional regulations which would basically eliminate carbon emissions from existing, coal-burning power plants.

Beyond that, what’s really important for this country is that we realize that our ability to cope with big climate events like Hurricane Sandy isn’t so good today. We’re having trouble dealing with today’s extreme events. How are we going to deal with more intense heat waves, potentially stronger tropical cyclones, and a higher sea level in the future if we can’t even handle today’s?

So very important for the government to get out there and get — help get Americans ready to deal with and cope with the climate challenges that are going to come ahead. And then the third thing would be leadership. The reason Americans are kind of uncertain about how much support they should give climate change is that, until recently, there hasn’t been much leadership on this issue and there’s still nothing out of Congress.

We need leadership from our governments at all levels, from cities up to the national government, to help us get together as a society, because this affects everyone, and organize to get this problem solved.

JUDY WOODRUFF: And Patricia Lankao, what do you say to those? Because we know there’s still a large degree of public skepticism about whether people need to be making sacrifices, whether there should be — there are job tradeoffs, for example. What do you say to folks who are still not sure that this is really urgent?

PATRICIA ROMERO LANKAO: Well, what I would say is that there are already opportunities and there are lots of innovations and experiments under way.

I am an expert on citizen climate change, and I have seen how local governments, communities and farmers are already introducing changes. For instance, we know that we have to have shelters to protect people when hurricanes hit our coasts.

We also know that we need to introduce conservation measures to protect our water resources when we are affected by droughts. And many cities in the U.S. have proved their leadership talents as innovators, not only in the mitigation arena, but also in the adaptation arena.

So, I have a kind of guarded optimism. I really believe in the abilities North Americans have to respond to this challenge. And I see win-win opportunities. And we have found many win-win opportunities, meaning actions that do not only protect us from climate change, but also put us on the international spot as leaders in the creation of new energy systems and systems to protect us from the impacts of climate change.

JUDY WOODRUFF: Patricia Lankao, Michael Oppenheimer, thank you both.

PATRICIA ROMERO LANKAO: Thank you.

MICHAEL OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/closing-window-action-climate-change-offers-consequences-opportunity/ (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/closing-window-action-climate-change-offers-consequences-opportunity/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on April 02, 2014, 11:23:58 PM
Conservative Climate Panel Warns World Faces ‘Breakdown Of Food Systems’ And More Violent Conflict

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued its second of four planned reports examining the state of climate science. This one summarizes what the scientific literature says about “Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability” (big PDF here). As with every recent IPCC report, it is super-cautious to a fault and yet still incredibly alarming.

It warns that we are doing a bad job of dealing with the climate change we’ve experienced to date: “Impacts from recent climate-related extremes, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, cyclones, and wildfires, reveal significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to current climate variability.”

It warns of the dreaded RFCs (“reasons for concern” — I’m not making this acronym up), such as “breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes.” You might call them RFAs (“reasons for alarm” or “reasons for action”). Indeed, in recent years, “several periods of rapid food and cereal price increases following climate extremes in key producing regions indicate a sensitivity of current markets to climate extremes among other factors.” So warming-driven drought and extreme weather have already begun to reduce food security. Now imagine adding another 2 billion people to feed while we are experiencing five times as much warming this century as we did last century!

No surprise, then, that climate change will “prolong existing, and create new, poverty traps, the latter particularly in urban areas and emerging hotspots of hunger.” And it will “increase risks of violent conflicts in the form of civil war and inter-group violence” — though for some reason that doesn’t make the list of RFCs.

In short, “We’re all sitting ducks,” as IPCC author and Princeton Prof. Michael Oppenheimer put it to the AP.

Much more here:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/30/3420723/climate-breakdown-of-food-systems/ (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/30/3420723/climate-breakdown-of-food-systems/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on April 03, 2014, 12:32:21 AM
Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN

The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability.

Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits.

An example of an adaptation strategy would be the construction of sea walls and levees to protect against flooding. Another might be introducing more efficient irrigation for farmers in areas where water is scarce.

Natural systems are currently bearing the brunt of climatic changes, but a growing impact on humans is feared.

Members of the UN's climate panel say it provides overwhelming evidence of the scale of these effects.

Our health, homes, food and safety are all likely to be threatened by rising temperatures, the summary says.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559 (http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on May 14, 2014, 02:17:08 PM
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10259984_789264431092079_3344819000332683213_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on May 14, 2014, 02:25:19 PM
I see the lake levels will be rising this year -  first in a while -
Thanks to the "freeze" this year and the large amounts of snow
from the Global Climate warming change weather

http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/05/great_lakes_water_levels_are_r.html#incart_most-read (http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/05/great_lakes_water_levels_are_r.html#incart_most-read)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: lilly on May 14, 2014, 03:14:41 PM
You can expect fruit and other produce prices to sky rocket due to the extended drought in California. By the way, this type of drought and an increase of rain in the northwest was predicted back in 2005.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/california-drought-matters-more-just-california (http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/california-drought-matters-more-just-california)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Monroe Native on May 14, 2014, 03:52:32 PM
According to the French the world ends in 500 days....

And I thought we would just be getting rid of Obozo.....

 8*

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: blue2 on May 14, 2014, 04:50:54 PM
Big drought in Calif nothing new.  Produce and fruit suffering because the democrats allow the enviornmentalist freeks to shut off water to the farm lands.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: sammy on May 14, 2014, 05:56:15 PM
Big drought in Calif nothing new.  Produce and fruit suffering because the democrats allow the enviornmentalist freeks to shut off water to the farm lands.
May not be as simple as all that. However, water is always a big deal when you try to farm a desert.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on May 14, 2014, 10:23:01 PM
According to the French the world ends in 500 days....

And I thought we would just be getting rid of Obozo.....

 8*

[url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html[/url] ([url]http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html[/url])


Might be referring to a washdown of filthy Paris.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on May 15, 2014, 07:38:07 AM
May not be as simple as all that. However, water is always a big deal when you try to farm a desert.

Very true.  Couple that with using all the ground water to supply very thirsty cities like L.A. and Las Vegas, and you get water shortages.

It's always been that way, and always will be. 

But some would try to convince us that it's the fault of global warming.   8*
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Professor H on May 15, 2014, 05:02:11 PM
Very true.  Couple that with using all the ground water to supply very thirsty cities like L.A. and Las Vegas, and you get water shortages.

It's always been that way, and always will be. 

But some would try to convince us that it's the fault of global warming.   8*

Gee you mean Colorado is tired of supplying water to these area's?

They used to have some rather large pipelines leaving the state  8*

All the more reasons we need to keep an eye on who tries to tap into our Great Lakes!
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: The Fuzz on May 15, 2014, 05:27:14 PM
Perhaps Colorado anticipates increased water usage to get rid of cotton mouth, and baking needs some other new law they are fortunate to have there.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 06, 2014, 01:28:48 PM
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/7cb4afbfb2bf7d72aba2f1f844e5d815/tumblr_n5bhruAI5n1r55d2io1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: excelsior on June 24, 2014, 08:33:58 AM
It appears that cooking the historical data definitely causes global warming.


NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000


http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/ (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/noaanasa-dramatically-altered-us-temperatures-after-the-year-2000/)

(http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/1998changesannotated.gif?w=500&h=355)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: livewire on June 25, 2014, 11:23:19 AM
Guess How Billionaire Global Warming Activist And DNC Supporter Tom Steyer Made His Massive Fortune?

Let me give you a hint - it wasn't from WIND POWER, or SOLAR POWER.




Billionaire activist Tom Steyer is a complex man:

#1 – In 2010, he joined Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and 37 other billionaires in pledging to give away half of his fortune.
#2 – He is now one of the Democratic party’s biggest donors and was a major supporter of both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns.
#3 – He has been called the “Green Superman,” pledging hundreds of millions of dollars to support climate change legislation and prevent climate change deniers from winning office.
#4 – He made most of his fortune off of foreign coal investments, the very energy source he now seeks to take down.

Did you catch that? He got rich by investing in “non-eco-friendly” energy sources, and now he’s spending that money to support policies that would cripple those industries.

To his credit, Steyer fully acknowledges his past and the source of his wealth, even citing it as the reason for pumping so much into environmentalism now; he’s seen the “error of his ways,” so to speak, and is doing what he can to, in his eyes, make up for it.

But according to CNN, Steyer has not done a full 180 degree turn and still profits from investments in “dirty” energy sources, though his adviser says he intends to give them up:

    Though Steyer divested from some of what he calls the dirtier fuels – coal and tar sands – his portfolio is, as of today, still not free of these investments. He has continued to make money off these unclean energies, while decrying them, and working to defeat politicians he sees as insufficiently committed to the cause.

The bottom line is that Harry Reid can whine about the Koch brothers all he wants, but the Democratic party is not short on its own share of insanely rich supporters. On top of that, one of Democrats’ top backers got rich off of the very industries that they decry.

Imagine the field day Reid would have with that if the situation were reversed…



http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/149757-guess-billionaire-global-warming-activist-dnc-supporter-tom-steyer-made-massive-fortune/ (http://www.ijreview.com/2014/06/149757-guess-billionaire-global-warming-activist-dnc-supporter-tom-steyer-made-massive-fortune/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: SidecarFlip on June 26, 2014, 01:30:43 AM
Reid is a dork too.
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 28, 2014, 06:41:57 AM
It appears that cooking the historical data definitely causes global warming.


NOAA/NASA Dramatically Altered US Temperatures After The Year 2000

The Truth-O-Meter Says:
(http://static.politifact.com.s3.amazonaws.com/rulings%2Ftom-pantsonfire.gif)
We rate the claim Pants on Fire.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/ (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/jun/25/steve-doocy/foxs-doocy-nasa-fudged-data-make-case-global-warmi/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 28, 2014, 08:22:24 AM
Broad Concern about Global Warming Boosts Support for New EPA Regulations
Seven in 10 Americans see global warming as a serious problem facing the country, enough to fuel broad support for federal efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions – even if it raises their own energy costs, a new ABC News/Washington Post poll finds.

The poll, conducted in advance of the Obama administration’s announcement today of planned regulations to cut such pollution, finds 70 percent support for limiting emissions from existing power plants, and, more generally, for requiring states to cut the production of greenhouse gases within their borders.

See PDF with full results, charts and tables here.

Notably, indicating public concern about the issue, 63 percent of Americans say they’d support a regulatory effort that significantly lowered greenhouse gases even if it raised their own energy expenses by $20 per month. (The figure is hypothetical, meant to test attitudes about the possible cost of new regulations. Actual cost impacts, if any, are a subject of sharp debate.)

Support for new regulations is linked closely to concern about the issue. Sixty-nine percent of Americans in this poll, produced for ABC by Langer Research Associates, see global warming as a serious problem; among them, eight in 10 favor new regulations, and three-quarters are willing to pay higher energy bills if it means significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions. Among those who don’t see a serious problem, by contrast, fewer than half favor cutting emissions, and just 36 percent back regulations that would raise their energy costs.

Further, among those who do see global warming – also known as climate change – as a serious problem, the vast majority, 83 percent, say it’s “very” serious.

The administration today announced plans to cut carbon pollution from existing power plants by 30 percent from their 2005 levels by 2030. States are to be given targets based on their current emissions, with flexibility on how to achieve cuts.

PARTISANSHIP AND IDEOLOGY – Despite strong political and ideological components to views on global warming, majorities across the political spectrum support new regulations, albeit to varying degrees.

Even among Republicans, a group generally more skeptical of government regulation – and less apt to see global warming as a serious problem – 63 percent nonetheless favor reducing power plant emissions, and 57 percent back state-level limits on greenhouse gases. These also are backed, respectively, by 55 and 54 percent of conservatives. (On one of these, power plant emissions, there’s a substantial gap in support between “somewhat” and “strong” conservatives.)

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/06/broad-concern-about-global-warming-boosts-support-for-new-epa-regulations/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 28, 2014, 08:24:12 AM
Obama Carbon Rule Backed by Most Americans — WSJ/NBC Poll

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-DH361_pollEP_G_20140617171851.jpg)

(http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-DH439_EPA_G_20140617194709.jpg)
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/18/obama-carbon-rule-backed-by-most-americans-wsjnbc-poll/ (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/06/18/obama-carbon-rule-backed-by-most-americans-wsjnbc-poll/)
Title: Re: Nope, no climate change here folks.
Post by: Frenchfry on June 28, 2014, 08:25:47 AM
Shock poll: Even red staters want to save planet

Republicans are reacting gleefully today to the announcement of new EPA