Brown Thumb
Well-Known Member
Finally a break in this global worming crap. It Hit 38 degrees today. Damm I thought I was going to freeze to death.
Global warming?
- Thread starter Jack in NB
- Start date
- Status
Rickey60
Well-Known Member
I wish you were right.
My truck is literally buried in white poofy "global warming" I keep meaning to excavate it and then end up saying f it and using the wife's car.. Gets better mpg anyway...
Markw
Well-Known Member
If you look at what we have been educated about, and what you think is correct you can come to your owm conclusions, I have worked on many new technophiles that are the energy related.It is the energy needed to make them. it is known as the carbon footprint. sometimes I think that your governments want to make more CO2 for something that will generate you 2kw it might take you 15 years to pay back the energy ans co2 that is required to make it in the first place.
There has never been, nor will there ever be ANYTHING humans can do to prevent our own extinction. As a species, we could have produced ZERO affect on the climate and it would not make a difference. Simple fact of the matter...Humans will one day no longer exist...PERIOD.
Politicians worldwide prefer you live in fear of your own shadow...you're easier to control that way.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
Politicians worldwide prefer you live in fear of your own shadow...you're easier to control that way.
Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
RyanM22
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2013
- Messages
- 158
- Points
- 18
Post of the day
winston-smoker
Well-Known Member
Here's a graph of temperature variations over the last 12,000 years, since the end of the last ice age. You will see from approximately 10,000 years ago, mean temperatures (the black line) have been fairly constant. The arrow showing the year 2004 indicates an anomalous year, in which global temperature was abnormally high just for that single year. I realize that the chart showing temperature variations of thousands of years might not show recent spikes all that well, but all things considered, the current mean is still well within the "climatic optimum."
Boboro
Well-Known Member
What temp should it be? How dry or wet, how much wind. Who can you trust to tell the truth. Is it the ppl. that get millions from a govment that wants to put a world tax on on us so we can cool the plantit. But what the hell. they gonna steal it one way or the other. Did they get the ship out of the ice yet?
Graphs? Take your pick:
https://www.google.com/search?q=hol...mIDIDw&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=625#imgdii=_
Bob
https://www.google.com/search?q=hol...mIDIDw&ved=0CCUQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=625#imgdii=_
Bob
winston-smoker
Well-Known Member
I get your point. But it appears, looking through that myriad of graphs, that all the graphs over the same 12,000 year period agree with the one I posted. All the graphs that showed a progressive and decisive upward trend in global temperature were the ones starting from 1860 to the present. One could say, on the basis of those graphs, that global warming corresponds to industrialization, and link it to human activity. But I think there's another possible interpretation: 150 years is not a very long period over which to measure trends in global climate, and the last 150 years could be a temporary warming cycle, like the Medieval Warm Period, that's attributable to natural reasons. The graphs showing the last 150 years also measure a narrower band of temperatures than the graphs showing the entire Holocene Interglacial Period, so the rise shown on the former would look dramatic, whereas the same rise on the latter would still fall within the range of a fairly constant long-term "climatic optimum."
Whether you pick an arbitrary date 12,000 years ago when the thermometer had not been invented, or another arbitrary date in 1880 when thermometers were rare, or some especially cold date in 1964 when climate science had hardly been born, or you name it... to contend that it's warmer or cooler now is beside the point. It proves nothing. The thesis behind global warming, now called climate change since warming has eluded us, is not simply that it's getting warmer. That's not the issue. Not at all. The "on average it's warmer despite you're freezing" argument is just a severe dumbing down of the whole thesis. It focuses on the one point in the whole panoply of necessary hypotheses which can be "proven" by fudging the facts.
Whether it is warmer on average somewhere else in the globe is not why government squanders my grandchildrens' billions on Volts and Fiskers and failed solar schemes and all the boondoggles they love so much.
The global warming theory depends upon about ten hypotheses, not one. Each and every one of these ten must be proven true before you buy the whole. Here are the ten questions I come up with. If you cannot answer each of the ten with a resounding affirmative, then the whole house of cards must tumble:
Whether it is warmer is a straw man.
I wrote the following lengthy disquisition for another forum. Some of the links in it may be dated.
Time to reprint it here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
I attended a high school so large that even after it was split in my junior
year my graduating class was still over 3,600. On of the perks of such a
large school was the wide choice of languages offered. I chose Russian.
Texts were hard to get, so our teacher would subscribe to Pravda and The Journal
of Atomic Scientists, for example, in Russian and English, then we would read
the two side by side. Given the hysteria of the Cold war at the time, this method
brought all sorts of trouble to our instructor; but that is another story.
Suffice that the Journal of Atomic Scientists was about the only place a Russian
could get published in the West, back then. A Russian climate scientist published a
fascinating article in the Journal, proposing a dam across the Bering Strait.
The idea was that Earth had been cooling rapidly since 1950, an ice age was
approaching, and it would bring a litany of natural disasters, requiring drastic
government action. Global cooling was the result of man made dust and smoke
blocking the sun's rays, he said.
Here was his solution: Warm water enters the Arctic round Norway, then absorbs
salt because it is warmer, and so gets heavier, allowing less salty colder
water to rise even though cold water is more dense, until this colder water
becomes fresh enough to freeze, creating sea ice and attendant albedo. He
proposed a dam with a beveled top not quite breaking the surface, which would
force warmer water upward while allowing colder fresher water to flow.
Essentially, he proposed intentional anthropogenic global warming to counter
unintentional anthropogenic global cooling.
This article became the seed of my first novel, an amateurish fanciful saga
in which a group of Eskimo trekked in kayaks from the artificially thawed
Arctic to the Antarctic in search of a habitat suited to their chilly lifestyle.
It all got nowhere. But it left me with a lifetime curiosity on the subject.
As part of the writing process, I researched everything from Peter Freuchen
the Danish explorer of the early 20th century, to Arrhenius, the scientist
of the late 19th century who first hypothesized that CO2 might be a factor
in global warming. Before I leave this paragraph, let me not omit to note
parenthetically that the fascinating Freuchen fathered an Inuit son who he
named Igimaqssusuktoranguapaluk. Had there been a Guinness Book at the time,
both Freuchen and son ought to have been included; one for crossing the
Greenland ice cap by dog sled, the other for owning a name most resembling
quarreling dogs. Had to look that name up, I must admit, because I could
not remember how to spell it.
All this transpired several years before John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul
Erlich describing the coming global cooling apocalypse. Paul Erlich is a
biologist notorious at the time for The Population Bomb, in which he predicted
dire consequences from over-population, and proposed forced population control,
a notion which only China took action on. John Holdren is an engineer from MIT.
Neither author was a climate scientist nor had the science been invented yet.
Yet Holdren predicted with certainty that global cooling would bring a litany
of natural disasters: tidal waves, epic storms, drought, flood, sea levels rising
fifty feet, and so forth.
A couple of decades later, I noted an article describing how a team of scientists
had finally devised a way to test Arrhenius' hypothesis by drilling ice cores
in Greenland. What they found was that, rather than preceding global warming,
increased CO2 has always come <b>after</b> periods of global warming, as
captured in the ice record. Thus disproving Arrhenius' hypothesis.
Three years after that, the IPCC report claimed the exact opposite. Arrhenius'
freshly disproven hypothesis was no longer a hypothesis, had skipped right past the
theory stage, was now "settled science".
I give you a series of questions. If any one of these questions is answered
in the negative, then the Gorebull Warbling Alarmists are as ignorant and as
unfounded as the flat earthers they accuse their opponents of being. Only
if each and every one of these questions can confidently be answered in
the affirmative should Global Warming be regarded as a genuine threat
warranting immediate and drastic government action.
______________________________
1) Can we know anything?
Plainly not.
Baby steps. First, reliably forecast the weather next Tuesday. Then proceed
to next June. Perhaps once you can reliably predict weather for a given month
next decade, then it might be time to consider whether you have a firm grasp
of approaching glacial epochs.
Examine this timeline: Earth, replete with weather, has been
here like four billion years; life for three of those. A million years
ago a couple monkeys fell out of a tree. Thirty thousand years ago Utzi
thought a reed coat sufficient for his ill fated trip across the glacier.
2,500 years ago Aristotle deduced that four elements, fire, air, water
and earth, created weather. In 1700, the French Philosophical Society
decided Ari was full of it. Fahrenheit invented his thermometer in 1740.
Matthew Fontaine Maury founded world meteorology by beginning to compile
his wonderful wind and weather charts in 1853. The first Arctic weather
station was manned about 1950. Tiros was launched in 1960. 1965, coolest
year in the century, is taken as the base line measurement for global warming.
People, climatology is in its infancy. These time frames are less than the
blink of an eye to a glacial epoch. We no more know why earth is warming
than we can tell why the other planets are warming as well. That's right. Mars,
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, all those we have a measure of have warmed at the same
rate as we have. There used to be a NASA page reporting this fact. I saw it. Either
it has since been taken down, or I cannot find it. Instead, I only google up
pages denying its existence. It was there. Maybe you can find it.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something. Then, the question becomes:
2) Can we rely on our sources?
Plainly not.
Forget, for a moment, Climategate, and the infamous faked hockey stick graph, and the
spectacle of Al Gore swindling a billion. Focus purely on scientists.
Remember John Holdren? The engineer who predicted a litany of disasters
resulting from global cooling? He is now Obama's science advisor, predicting
the same litany of disasters from... global warming! I shet you not.
In 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the
Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition
of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was
eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however,
had any involvement in climatology.
President Clinton cited a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global
warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Fewer than 10% of these
"scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon,
two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists,
a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Backed by
a corrupt Arkansas politician.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something and we can trust our sources. Then, the question becomes:
3) Is it settled?
Plainly not.
Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to
express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate." This petition was circulated by a former
President of the American Academy of Science. They counted 50 times as many PhDs
among them, IIRC, as the number of PhDs who signed the initial IPCC report. Plainly,
there is no consensus. Even among the initial IPCC signers, two hundred some later
brought suit in Britain to have their names taken off the report, saying they had
quit the commission rather than sign, but their names were listed as signatories anyway.
But the best collection of alternative views from scientific sources which I have
seen was linked on this forum just the other day. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
No, it does not matter one whit whether you can find one of those links and deride
it. The only point under consideration here is: Is it settled? It is not. There is not one broad
camp of opinion and a handful of kooks; instead, there are two broad camps.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something. can trust what we know, and what we know is settled.
Then, the question becomes:
4) Is it settled science?
No Effin Way.
The very phrase "settled science" is completely offensive to the fundamental notion
of science. Anyone who offers the phrase ought to return to middle school
and get a grip on science. Here is how science works: A thinker dreams up a hypothesis.
He, if he can, and others, over years, test and re-test his hypothesis, repeatedly,
attempting to disprove it, while sharing their results with one another. If this
hypothesis cannot be disproved, then it may be elevated to the status of theory
until such time as it can be disproved. The scientific method is skeptical, always
testing, never resting. Science does not prove theories so much as it attempts to
disprove them. One failure makes the house of cards tumble, and then we must look
for a new hypothesis. This is how we got to the moon. By contrast, the global
warming alarmists counter every objection with "it's settled", attack the character
and intelligence of anyone who disagrees, protect their datasets by invoking
intellectual property rights, and beat their drum. This is not science.
Science does not settle. Dogma settles.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, rely on our sources, and it is settled science.
Then, the question becomes:
5) Do we know that the climate is warming?
Plainly not.
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling
over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing.
Then from 1940 to 1965 temperatures were decreasing. For 15 years, temperatures
increased back to about where they were in the 1930's. Since then, they've been flat.
That is, until this Winter. Overall, the total average
annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual
amount is uncertain-- maybe 1/3° C. Day to day, we see snow up the wazoo in one place
while we get warmer in another place. The average diff, we are told, is alarming.
Still, not nearly so warm, we are told, as during the Middle Ages, when it was no
big deal. What is most surprising, however, is that for the last fifteen years,
average temperatures have remained rather stable on average, while global warming
hysteria has remained stable as well. This was accomplished by merely changing
the name from Global Warming, which is not apparent, to climate change, which
is always the case.
Last August, sea ice off Antarctica increased 2,600 times the area of Manhattan
in one day. One day. Did you hear about it from Dan Rather?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled science,
and it's heating up. Then, the question becomes:
6) Do we know why?
Plainly not.
We have any number of candidates:
11 year and 206 year cycles of sunspot activity
21,000 year cycles of Earth's tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes)
41,000 year cycles of the wobble in Earth's orbit
100,000 year cycles in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
The real greenhouse gas: water vapor.
Thinning magnetosphere
... as well as other cycles only recently discovered and little understood, as, for
instance, cycles in the Gulf Stream. Do we blame any of these? No. Instead, we are
to blame C02. Why? Common sense tells us this is the least of our worries. Science
tells us 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. (Have you ever been to the tropics?)
CO2 comprises 3.6% of greenhouse gas. Man-made CO2 comprises 3.2% of that. In sum,
0.117% of greenhouse gas is contributed by man. That smidge has been increasing by a
fifth of a percent of itself per annum. Jeepers.
My friends, what could be less likely?
A thinning magnetosphere may be the most likely alternative candidate. We just sent up the
very first satellite intended to map the shape of the magnetosphere last month. Last month.
How can we know yet? Just this month, our first satellite to escape our solar system reported
that our entire solar system is moving through a super-gigantic magnetic torus of unknown
origin or effect. You think you know yet what's going on? Get over yourself.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled
science, it is warming, and carbon is the culprit. Then, the question becomes:
7) Is it a bad thing?
Plainly not.
There are seven billion of us on this planet. I can remember when there were three.
My grandchildren may easily see twenty. Nobody knows how to limit this number. They
will all need to eat. What will feed them? Water, soil, warmth will. Look at a map.
If Northern Canada and Siberia could be thawed and tilled, my word! Not to mention the cost
of heating oil. If it is warming, warming is far from a curse; it is a timely godsend.
I really don't see how anyone can refute this.
Oh, and by the way, CO2 fuels plants which both we and meat eat.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, science is settled,
we know it is warming, it's our fault for making so much nasty carbon, and
change is bad. Then, the question becomes:
8) Can it be prevented?
Not likely.
North American CO2 emissions fell 1.3 percent in 2011 amid slowing economic
growth. In China, the world’s biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel
rose more than 9 percent in 2011. What? You're going to tell them wogs to knock it off?
You're going to tell India and Indonesia "no productivity for you, boys, missed the
boat, good times is over, you gotta stay stuck in the third world." Sure. That'll
go over. Get a grip. If Nigeria wants a steel mill, they're not going to get one
powered by solar panels. Realistically, unless you have a way to reverse population
growth and the proliferation of wealth, all within the narrow window of time predicted,
you flat out cannot do it. And, yes, committed idealists, there are things in this
world that cannot be done.
This question is so ridiculous you just gotta laugh. In a world where we can't even
eliminate nuclear weapons, we're going to achieve consensus on alternative energy
and cow farts? What do these people think with?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, we know it's warming,
we know why, it's our fault, it's a bad thing, and it can be prevented. Then, the
question becomes:
9) Do we know how to prevent it?
Plainly not.
Who? Us? Now? Did I hear that right?
Show me baby steps. First, avert one tornado from one trailer park. Next, sweep one
measly hurricane out to sea away from New York. Next vacation, I want all
sunny days. When you can do any of that, then get back to me, as only then
will I seriously consider the feasibility of altering a glacial epoch.
This assumption takes silly to new heights.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
we can know something, our sources are good, science settled, it's warming,
bad on us, bad stuff on the way, preventable, and we can do it. Then, the
question becomes:
10) Should we prevent it?
Plainly not.
What do you do if there comes a flood? You go to higher ground. What do you do if
you are attacked? You reach for your most effective weapon. Man has prevailed over
millennia by adapting to conditions. We are adaptable. **** Getwiththeprogramus.
That is our strength, our refuge, our higher ground. Not controlling the uncontrollable.
Adapting to it. If some fearsome natural disaster really is staring us in the face, then
now is not the time to change our nature; now is the time to employ our strength. Adapt.
In 2010, global warming scientists finally quantified the rise in sea level they
thought attributable to global warming: 11 millimeters in twenty years. Which do
you think we could more realistically achieve: Adapting to 3/8" higher sea level or
turning back the glacial epoch?
Anyone?
Perhaps some member from Netherlands can chime in.
______________________________
Apocalyptic hysteria recurs time and again throughout history. It always goes like so:
God shall destroy the earth with natural disasters because mankind has been wicked.
Sound familiar?
350 years ago, climate abruptly cooled. We call it the Little Ice Age. A glacier in
Switzerland began descending the mountain toward the village of Fiesch, threatening
to destroy the place. The village gathered a collection, send to Rome and hired
priests to ascend the mountain side swinging censers, bearing idols, counting beads,
and chanting prayers imploring the Virgin to intercede on their behalf and hold back
the glacier. 350 years later their prayers were finally answered... in spades. The glacier
began melting so rapidly that Fiesch felt threatened by flood. The villagers gathered
a collection, sent to Rome, and hired priests, who ascended the mountain swinging
censers, telling beads, bearing idols, chanting a new prayer imploring the Virgin to
intercede on their behalf. I kid you not. I kid you not. I am not kidding.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rs-vatican-prayer-alps-science-gobal-warming/
How's this stuff gain credence?
Fiesch's priests wore white surplices, held crosses, and spoke Latin. Scientists wear
white lab coats, hold clipboards, and make up new words from Latin. I know that,
because I saw one on TV peddling a hair loss remedy. That's when I knew I could trust
whatever he said. The science of hair loss is settled, after all.
Whether it is warmer on average somewhere else in the globe is not why government squanders my grandchildrens' billions on Volts and Fiskers and failed solar schemes and all the boondoggles they love so much.
The global warming theory depends upon about ten hypotheses, not one. Each and every one of these ten must be proven true before you buy the whole. Here are the ten questions I come up with. If you cannot answer each of the ten with a resounding affirmative, then the whole house of cards must tumble:
Whether it is warmer is a straw man.
I wrote the following lengthy disquisition for another forum. Some of the links in it may be dated.
Time to reprint it here:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background
I attended a high school so large that even after it was split in my junior
year my graduating class was still over 3,600. On of the perks of such a
large school was the wide choice of languages offered. I chose Russian.
Texts were hard to get, so our teacher would subscribe to Pravda and The Journal
of Atomic Scientists, for example, in Russian and English, then we would read
the two side by side. Given the hysteria of the Cold war at the time, this method
brought all sorts of trouble to our instructor; but that is another story.
Suffice that the Journal of Atomic Scientists was about the only place a Russian
could get published in the West, back then. A Russian climate scientist published a
fascinating article in the Journal, proposing a dam across the Bering Strait.
The idea was that Earth had been cooling rapidly since 1950, an ice age was
approaching, and it would bring a litany of natural disasters, requiring drastic
government action. Global cooling was the result of man made dust and smoke
blocking the sun's rays, he said.
Here was his solution: Warm water enters the Arctic round Norway, then absorbs
salt because it is warmer, and so gets heavier, allowing less salty colder
water to rise even though cold water is more dense, until this colder water
becomes fresh enough to freeze, creating sea ice and attendant albedo. He
proposed a dam with a beveled top not quite breaking the surface, which would
force warmer water upward while allowing colder fresher water to flow.
Essentially, he proposed intentional anthropogenic global warming to counter
unintentional anthropogenic global cooling.
This article became the seed of my first novel, an amateurish fanciful saga
in which a group of Eskimo trekked in kayaks from the artificially thawed
Arctic to the Antarctic in search of a habitat suited to their chilly lifestyle.
It all got nowhere. But it left me with a lifetime curiosity on the subject.
As part of the writing process, I researched everything from Peter Freuchen
the Danish explorer of the early 20th century, to Arrhenius, the scientist
of the late 19th century who first hypothesized that CO2 might be a factor
in global warming. Before I leave this paragraph, let me not omit to note
parenthetically that the fascinating Freuchen fathered an Inuit son who he
named Igimaqssusuktoranguapaluk. Had there been a Guinness Book at the time,
both Freuchen and son ought to have been included; one for crossing the
Greenland ice cap by dog sled, the other for owning a name most resembling
quarreling dogs. Had to look that name up, I must admit, because I could
not remember how to spell it.
All this transpired several years before John Holdren co-authored a book with Paul
Erlich describing the coming global cooling apocalypse. Paul Erlich is a
biologist notorious at the time for The Population Bomb, in which he predicted
dire consequences from over-population, and proposed forced population control,
a notion which only China took action on. John Holdren is an engineer from MIT.
Neither author was a climate scientist nor had the science been invented yet.
Yet Holdren predicted with certainty that global cooling would bring a litany
of natural disasters: tidal waves, epic storms, drought, flood, sea levels rising
fifty feet, and so forth.
A couple of decades later, I noted an article describing how a team of scientists
had finally devised a way to test Arrhenius' hypothesis by drilling ice cores
in Greenland. What they found was that, rather than preceding global warming,
increased CO2 has always come <b>after</b> periods of global warming, as
captured in the ice record. Thus disproving Arrhenius' hypothesis.
Three years after that, the IPCC report claimed the exact opposite. Arrhenius'
freshly disproven hypothesis was no longer a hypothesis, had skipped right past the
theory stage, was now "settled science".
I give you a series of questions. If any one of these questions is answered
in the negative, then the Gorebull Warbling Alarmists are as ignorant and as
unfounded as the flat earthers they accuse their opponents of being. Only
if each and every one of these questions can confidently be answered in
the affirmative should Global Warming be regarded as a genuine threat
warranting immediate and drastic government action.
______________________________
1) Can we know anything?
Plainly not.
Baby steps. First, reliably forecast the weather next Tuesday. Then proceed
to next June. Perhaps once you can reliably predict weather for a given month
next decade, then it might be time to consider whether you have a firm grasp
of approaching glacial epochs.
Examine this timeline: Earth, replete with weather, has been
here like four billion years; life for three of those. A million years
ago a couple monkeys fell out of a tree. Thirty thousand years ago Utzi
thought a reed coat sufficient for his ill fated trip across the glacier.
2,500 years ago Aristotle deduced that four elements, fire, air, water
and earth, created weather. In 1700, the French Philosophical Society
decided Ari was full of it. Fahrenheit invented his thermometer in 1740.
Matthew Fontaine Maury founded world meteorology by beginning to compile
his wonderful wind and weather charts in 1853. The first Arctic weather
station was manned about 1950. Tiros was launched in 1960. 1965, coolest
year in the century, is taken as the base line measurement for global warming.
People, climatology is in its infancy. These time frames are less than the
blink of an eye to a glacial epoch. We no more know why earth is warming
than we can tell why the other planets are warming as well. That's right. Mars,
Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Pluto, all those we have a measure of have warmed at the same
rate as we have. There used to be a NASA page reporting this fact. I saw it. Either
it has since been taken down, or I cannot find it. Instead, I only google up
pages denying its existence. It was there. Maybe you can find it.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something. Then, the question becomes:
2) Can we rely on our sources?
Plainly not.
Forget, for a moment, Climategate, and the infamous faked hockey stick graph, and the
spectacle of Al Gore swindling a billion. Focus purely on scientists.
Remember John Holdren? The engineer who predicted a litany of disasters
resulting from global cooling? He is now Obama's science advisor, predicting
the same litany of disasters from... global warming! I shet you not.
In 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the
Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition
of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was
eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however,
had any involvement in climatology.
President Clinton cited a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global
warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Fewer than 10% of these
"scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon,
two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists,
a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine. Backed by
a corrupt Arkansas politician.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something and we can trust our sources. Then, the question becomes:
3) Is it settled?
Plainly not.
Over 17,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition to
express their view that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human
release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will,
in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere
and disruption of the Earth's climate." This petition was circulated by a former
President of the American Academy of Science. They counted 50 times as many PhDs
among them, IIRC, as the number of PhDs who signed the initial IPCC report. Plainly,
there is no consensus. Even among the initial IPCC signers, two hundred some later
brought suit in Britain to have their names taken off the report, saying they had
quit the commission rather than sign, but their names were listed as signatories anyway.
But the best collection of alternative views from scientific sources which I have
seen was linked on this forum just the other day. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
No, it does not matter one whit whether you can find one of those links and deride
it. The only point under consideration here is: Is it settled? It is not. There is not one broad
camp of opinion and a handful of kooks; instead, there are two broad camps.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something. can trust what we know, and what we know is settled.
Then, the question becomes:
4) Is it settled science?
No Effin Way.
The very phrase "settled science" is completely offensive to the fundamental notion
of science. Anyone who offers the phrase ought to return to middle school
and get a grip on science. Here is how science works: A thinker dreams up a hypothesis.
He, if he can, and others, over years, test and re-test his hypothesis, repeatedly,
attempting to disprove it, while sharing their results with one another. If this
hypothesis cannot be disproved, then it may be elevated to the status of theory
until such time as it can be disproved. The scientific method is skeptical, always
testing, never resting. Science does not prove theories so much as it attempts to
disprove them. One failure makes the house of cards tumble, and then we must look
for a new hypothesis. This is how we got to the moon. By contrast, the global
warming alarmists counter every objection with "it's settled", attack the character
and intelligence of anyone who disagrees, protect their datasets by invoking
intellectual property rights, and beat their drum. This is not science.
Science does not settle. Dogma settles.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, rely on our sources, and it is settled science.
Then, the question becomes:
5) Do we know that the climate is warming?
Plainly not.
Temperatures have gone through nearly two complete cycles of warming and cooling
over the last 100 years. During the period 1900 to 1940 temperatures were increasing.
Then from 1940 to 1965 temperatures were decreasing. For 15 years, temperatures
increased back to about where they were in the 1930's. Since then, they've been flat.
That is, until this Winter. Overall, the total average
annual temperature increase in the U.S. in the last century is so slight the actual
amount is uncertain-- maybe 1/3° C. Day to day, we see snow up the wazoo in one place
while we get warmer in another place. The average diff, we are told, is alarming.
Still, not nearly so warm, we are told, as during the Middle Ages, when it was no
big deal. What is most surprising, however, is that for the last fifteen years,
average temperatures have remained rather stable on average, while global warming
hysteria has remained stable as well. This was accomplished by merely changing
the name from Global Warming, which is not apparent, to climate change, which
is always the case.
Last August, sea ice off Antarctica increased 2,600 times the area of Manhattan
in one day. One day. Did you hear about it from Dan Rather?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled science,
and it's heating up. Then, the question becomes:
6) Do we know why?
Plainly not.
We have any number of candidates:
11 year and 206 year cycles of sunspot activity
21,000 year cycles of Earth's tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun (precession of the equinoxes)
41,000 year cycles of the wobble in Earth's orbit
100,000 year cycles in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit (cycle of eccentricity)
The real greenhouse gas: water vapor.
Thinning magnetosphere
... as well as other cycles only recently discovered and little understood, as, for
instance, cycles in the Gulf Stream. Do we blame any of these? No. Instead, we are
to blame C02. Why? Common sense tells us this is the least of our worries. Science
tells us 95% of the greenhouse effect is water vapor. (Have you ever been to the tropics?)
CO2 comprises 3.6% of greenhouse gas. Man-made CO2 comprises 3.2% of that. In sum,
0.117% of greenhouse gas is contributed by man. That smidge has been increasing by a
fifth of a percent of itself per annum. Jeepers.
My friends, what could be less likely?
A thinning magnetosphere may be the most likely alternative candidate. We just sent up the
very first satellite intended to map the shape of the magnetosphere last month. Last month.
How can we know yet? Just this month, our first satellite to escape our solar system reported
that our entire solar system is moving through a super-gigantic magnetic torus of unknown
origin or effect. You think you know yet what's going on? Get over yourself.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, that we can rely on our sources, it is settled
science, it is warming, and carbon is the culprit. Then, the question becomes:
7) Is it a bad thing?
Plainly not.
There are seven billion of us on this planet. I can remember when there were three.
My grandchildren may easily see twenty. Nobody knows how to limit this number. They
will all need to eat. What will feed them? Water, soil, warmth will. Look at a map.
If Northern Canada and Siberia could be thawed and tilled, my word! Not to mention the cost
of heating oil. If it is warming, warming is far from a curse; it is a timely godsend.
I really don't see how anyone can refute this.
Oh, and by the way, CO2 fuels plants which both we and meat eat.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, science is settled,
we know it is warming, it's our fault for making so much nasty carbon, and
change is bad. Then, the question becomes:
8) Can it be prevented?
Not likely.
North American CO2 emissions fell 1.3 percent in 2011 amid slowing economic
growth. In China, the world’s biggest emitter, greenhouse gases from fuel
rose more than 9 percent in 2011. What? You're going to tell them wogs to knock it off?
You're going to tell India and Indonesia "no productivity for you, boys, missed the
boat, good times is over, you gotta stay stuck in the third world." Sure. That'll
go over. Get a grip. If Nigeria wants a steel mill, they're not going to get one
powered by solar panels. Realistically, unless you have a way to reverse population
growth and the proliferation of wealth, all within the narrow window of time predicted,
you flat out cannot do it. And, yes, committed idealists, there are things in this
world that cannot be done.
This question is so ridiculous you just gotta laugh. In a world where we can't even
eliminate nuclear weapons, we're going to achieve consensus on alternative energy
and cow farts? What do these people think with?
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
that we can know something, we can rely on our sources, we know it's warming,
we know why, it's our fault, it's a bad thing, and it can be prevented. Then, the
question becomes:
9) Do we know how to prevent it?
Plainly not.
Who? Us? Now? Did I hear that right?
Show me baby steps. First, avert one tornado from one trailer park. Next, sweep one
measly hurricane out to sea away from New York. Next vacation, I want all
sunny days. When you can do any of that, then get back to me, as only then
will I seriously consider the feasibility of altering a glacial epoch.
This assumption takes silly to new heights.
______________________________
However, let's assume the preposterous for the sake of argument. Let's assume
we can know something, our sources are good, science settled, it's warming,
bad on us, bad stuff on the way, preventable, and we can do it. Then, the
question becomes:
10) Should we prevent it?
Plainly not.
What do you do if there comes a flood? You go to higher ground. What do you do if
you are attacked? You reach for your most effective weapon. Man has prevailed over
millennia by adapting to conditions. We are adaptable. **** Getwiththeprogramus.
That is our strength, our refuge, our higher ground. Not controlling the uncontrollable.
Adapting to it. If some fearsome natural disaster really is staring us in the face, then
now is not the time to change our nature; now is the time to employ our strength. Adapt.
In 2010, global warming scientists finally quantified the rise in sea level they
thought attributable to global warming: 11 millimeters in twenty years. Which do
you think we could more realistically achieve: Adapting to 3/8" higher sea level or
turning back the glacial epoch?
Anyone?
Perhaps some member from Netherlands can chime in.
______________________________
Apocalyptic hysteria recurs time and again throughout history. It always goes like so:
God shall destroy the earth with natural disasters because mankind has been wicked.
Sound familiar?
350 years ago, climate abruptly cooled. We call it the Little Ice Age. A glacier in
Switzerland began descending the mountain toward the village of Fiesch, threatening
to destroy the place. The village gathered a collection, send to Rome and hired
priests to ascend the mountain side swinging censers, bearing idols, counting beads,
and chanting prayers imploring the Virgin to intercede on their behalf and hold back
the glacier. 350 years later their prayers were finally answered... in spades. The glacier
began melting so rapidly that Fiesch felt threatened by flood. The villagers gathered
a collection, sent to Rome, and hired priests, who ascended the mountain swinging
censers, telling beads, bearing idols, chanting a new prayer imploring the Virgin to
intercede on their behalf. I kid you not. I kid you not. I am not kidding.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...rs-vatican-prayer-alps-science-gobal-warming/
How's this stuff gain credence?
Fiesch's priests wore white surplices, held crosses, and spoke Latin. Scientists wear
white lab coats, hold clipboards, and make up new words from Latin. I know that,
because I saw one on TV peddling a hair loss remedy. That's when I knew I could trust
whatever he said. The science of hair loss is settled, after all.
Boboro
Well-Known Member
The car comein up your driveway is the NSA. Followed closely by the IRS.
A FREE on-line course is being offered by the University of Chicago, for those who want to see the real data, and make up their minds.
https://www.coursera.org/course/globalwarming
It starts at the end of March, lasts 8 weeks, and consists of a small number of short videos per week, and estimated at 2-5 hours of videos plus readings per week. "This course assumes no scientific knowledge and is geared toward a general audience. The problem sets require high-school-level algebra."
If you haven't already made up your mind, then check it out.
Bob
https://www.coursera.org/course/globalwarming
It starts at the end of March, lasts 8 weeks, and consists of a small number of short videos per week, and estimated at 2-5 hours of videos plus readings per week. "This course assumes no scientific knowledge and is geared toward a general audience. The problem sets require high-school-level algebra."
If you haven't already made up your mind, then check it out.
Bob
Markw
Well-Known Member
I don't like to get to political involved in the argument but all you need to make your mind up is the following
1 World population growth over the last 200 years.
2 Co2 chart from when records were first started
3 Global average temperatures from when records were first started.
If there is global warming you will see the link in the charts, or should I say when we started burning fuels. We are as Don said our worst enemy.
1 World population growth over the last 200 years.
2 Co2 chart from when records were first started
3 Global average temperatures from when records were first started.
If there is global warming you will see the link in the charts, or should I say when we started burning fuels. We are as Don said our worst enemy.
How do you pronounce "Igimaqssusuktoranguapaluk"? 
I think the whole argument is silly. Whether you agree or disagree with "global warming"/"climate change" numbers can be produced to defend each position.
Human's consumption of fossil fuels is a fleeting moment in the big picture. Allow the next Einstein to discover an alternative energy source and stop trying to force solutions. We're putting the cart before the horse by trying to correct a condition that has no resolve...yet.
In fifty years, people will be laughing at how much importance global warming played in everyone's lives...back in the olden days.
I think the whole argument is silly. Whether you agree or disagree with "global warming"/"climate change" numbers can be produced to defend each position.
Human's consumption of fossil fuels is a fleeting moment in the big picture. Allow the next Einstein to discover an alternative energy source and stop trying to force solutions. We're putting the cart before the horse by trying to correct a condition that has no resolve...yet.
In fifty years, people will be laughing at how much importance global warming played in everyone's lives...back in the olden days.
I'm not worried about global warming or climate change. What I worry about is the "entity we don't discuss here" getting involved in it. That never works out good for us little people. Nature can take care of itself without that "entity" continuously digging into my checkbook.
Last edited:
I don't. Last time I tried I caught bronchitis.How do you pronounce "Igimaqssusuktoranguapaluk"?
You?
I do know a guy claims he taught his wood chipper to pronounce it. Dunno I believe him.
However, I am astonished the forum software will not pronounce h0m0 as in my made-up word H0m0Getwiththeprogramus. How are you supposed to spell homogenized, **** sapiens, homonym, and the rest?
I just can't stomach the galloping pace of political correctness in what is supposed to be a free country. When we were children, thought control police in the movies were black clad evil minions of a tyrannical state. Didn't turn out that way. Turned out to be each other.
I'm here at the office this morning wishing I were home smoking a cigar and wrenching in the garage. Spring is clearly springing. Finally
Today, the two most widely respected scientific bodies on Earth--the US National Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Academy--have released a plain language, 36 page brochure entitled "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes." I've made it available to those interested, using the link below. Much of it is in question and answer format.
Climate Change: Evidence and Causes. [2.3MB pdf]
Bob
Climate Change: Evidence and Causes. [2.3MB pdf]
Bob
winston-smoker
Well-Known Member
Just on the news this morning. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has said that there is no evidence that global warming is caused by humans, and accused environmental scientists of using faulty climate models.
I am 65 years old (at the moment). When I was a young man, during the heady days of John Kennedy and going to the moon, Americans in general held scientists and science in high regard, and were apparently more adept at distinguishing the difference between authoritative science and popular notions. A higher proportion of students studied math and science than during the past 30 years. Today, journalists and talk-show celebrities seem to carry more weight. Too bad for us.
There simply are no models of climate science that are "better" than those that were reviewed by the committees of NAS and RS in preparing the brochure linked above. You certainly don't have to "believe" it, but that's the current state of the science.
Bob
There simply are no models of climate science that are "better" than those that were reviewed by the committees of NAS and RS in preparing the brochure linked above. You certainly don't have to "believe" it, but that's the current state of the science.
Bob
- Status
