re: freedom in 2017 6/26Why because he did not invest in Au like
Glennie pleaded? to cats 6/26Really? Climate change is
cyclical. But, you are living in a bubble if you think modern life isn't
adding to the chaos. I agree w/ twin lights about adding waste and taking small
rationale steps to address the issue.p.s. Funny how conservatives
aren't blasting Barry about the bailout of Detroit anymore? Have you looked
at the recent JD Power results?
To "Semi-Strong" there is a conspiracy, but it is not a vast global one,
it is limited to a just a small yet very vocal group.You can also
look at it like the flat earthers. At one time they held the majority of
opinion, despite the facts.
I tend to side with the posters who have noted that scientific reasearch is
dependent upon government funding.There were some scientists who did
experiments that definitely proved that tobacco use does not lead to cancer.
They were getting paid by the tobacco companies to do it.There were
probably a lot of scientists in Copernicus' day who knew that the earth
revolved around the sun, but didn't want to lose the patronage of their
respective governments, and of the Medieval Christian Church."climate change" is just another buzz word to produce panic that will
induce citizens to give up their freedom for serfdom, in exchange for nothing at
all, because climate change is coming. One can keep one's tax dollars to
pay to air condition one's home, or one can give up their tax dollars in an
attempt to stave off the warming trend by funneling large sums of capital to men
with questionable ethics-- as politicians have been known to be since the days
of ancient Rome.
Worf,There is a wide range of opinions on how much, how fast, and
what might be accelerators in the process. But the pros virtually all agree
that human activities are warming the planet.I work in real estate
and finance – far less complex than climate science. I don’t think
most educated folks could just walk in and do what the experts I work with do.
It requires significant time and training. Also, who can devote the kind of
time required to do this?Do we do the same with doctors? Tell them
they are wrong and rely on our own research? Medicine is generally less certain
than climate science.The problem is not the science. It is the
politics that wants to control the science. We had the same problem with the
tobacco companies when I was a kid. The vast majority of scientists were
concluding that smoking was deadly. A few were willing to buck the trend for
tobacco money. Today, these would be oil companies.RedShirt,See my prior posts. Either the scientists are idiots for not seeing
what you do or there is a vast global conspiracy of unprecedented proportions.
Semi-Strong:Folks who study these things for a living don't all
come to a consensus. Some say the sun spot cycle has cooled the ocean
temperature. Many other explanation has also been given.This all
boils down to doing your own observations, and making your own conclusions.
Don't let someone else form your opinions.Politics are loaded
with untruths. I could make a long list.
@worfIf you look at a graph of solar activity and global
temperatures you'll see what looks like a correlation for the first half of
last century, but over the last 35 years the sun has remained fairly constant
with a small cooling trend while the global temperatures increased dramatically.
To "Semi-Strong" their theories and basis for their data is not what
interests me on that web site. The interesting thing is the graph of global
temperatures for the past 4500 years. Don't you find it interesting that
the AGW alarmists are using a temperature that is from the end of an ice age as
a baseline? That is like saying the ideal outdoor temperature is something from
late winter, and anything more than that is too hot.As for the solar
models being well integrated into the models, that is not true either. The
methods for modeling the solar energy getting to the earth's surface at
poor at best. See "The sun shines some light on global warming
orthodoxy" in the National Post. From Duke University read "Sun's
Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists
Report". Another good one is "Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?"
at the National Post.Basically, the current climate models fail to
properly account for the sun's contribution to warming the planet.
Worf,No. There is fluctuation. But the solar cycles are well
studied and have been integrated into the models. As has nearly every thing
anyone ever says on these boards.There are only two options here.
One is that scientists are unaware of simple facts that non-scientists and
political talking heads all know. Improbable to say the least.The
other is the worldwide super conspiracy described previously. Also improbable.
Why? Because history shows us that conspiracies of more than just a few
individuals are incredibly hard to maintain. That is why we have a witness
protection program.Honestly, if we are to post countermanding
scientific facts on these boards showing that folks who study these things for a
living are totally wrong (not just a little wrong). We better have awesome
credentials ourselves or be getting the data straight from those who do (and not
from those who have a one sided political agenda to promote).If you
look at prior posts, many of the things posted as "fact" are only half
truths. They do not reveal the speakers full intent. Or, the "expert"
cited is dubious. Or, it really comes down to conspiracy. These just are not
Semi-Strong:So, these short-term and long-term climatic cycles are
not related to varying energy from the sun? Do you think the sun's output
is constant?Give some evidence.
Worf,These changes are not due to solar activity.Redshirt,So YOU know the data is questionable, but NASA either
doesn't know or is conspiring to keep the REAL data from us, right?From the Long Range Weather website: "From the late 1940s
through the early 1970s, a climate research organization called the Weather
Science Foundation of Crystal Lake, Illinois, determined that the planet's
warm, cold, wet and dry periods were the result of alternating short-term and
long-term climatic cycles. . . Much of this data was based upon thousands of
hours of research done by Dr. Raymond H. Wheeler and his associates during the
1930s and 1940s at the University of Kansas."So their hypothesis
is based on cycles and their base data is from the 1930s and 1940s.happy2bhere,Thousands of scientists in dictatorships and
democracies, communist and capitalistic countries, of nearly every language and
culture, all have the exact same interest? "And it doesn't matter who
is in the White House."Who is the nefarious power directing all
of this? The Illuminati? Al Gore? Who?The Mafia kill people and
even they do not exercise that degree of control.
Can Obama make climate constant? No!Temperature from the sun
varies, thus causing the ocean temp, and climate to change.Ever
wonder why tropical plants are found buried in Greenland?Anyone
doing homework, would know Obama is not being truthful.
To "atl134" read the Register's article "Painting by numbers:
NASA's peculiar thermometer". They have a really nice presentation
showing how NASA's ground based temperatures have diverged from 2
independant satelite based systems.Another interesting bit of data
can be seen in "Global Temperature Trends From 2500 B.C. To 2040 A.D."
at LongRangeWeather. It isn't their predictions that are as interesting as
the graph showing the historical temperature data. The AGW alarmists, for some
strange reason, are using the data from close to the end of an ice age as a
baseline temperature. If the earth was pulling out of an ice age, doesn't
that mean that we could be headed towards the ideal temperature?Why
are you and your ilk relying on junk science to push a global tax agenda?We have seen the same pattern in history. See "The Disgraceful
Episode Of Lysenkoism Brings Us Global Warming Theory" in Forbes.
Scientists that used bad data, gained government favor and funding. Lets see
who consistantly gets the government funding.
@happy2bhere"Why did your movement change the term from Global Warming
to Climate Change? "It was determined that global warming was
not comprehensive enough. With a warmer climate we expect more sea ice loss, a
higher incidence of floods and droughts (warmer->more evapaporation->
higher precip totals in areas getting precip/faster incidence of droughts in
areas not getting precip), coral bleaching and even things like ocean
acidification due to the increased CO2. The change to the term climate change
was to better get across the idea that it's more than just getting
warmer."since it was only back in the '70s that scientists
were worried about the coming Ice Age"Actually most of the
scientific literature back then was still saying warming (consult the journal
article "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus").
For those that were wrong, we now understand that most of the reason for the
halt in increasing temperatures from the 50s-70s was due to global dimming via
increases in aerosols that caused pollution issues as well as suppressing
temperature increases, once we cleaned up the air that negative anthropogenic
influence was reduced.
@FelisConcolur"According to satellite data 1998 is still the hottest
recorded year,"One would notice that years 2-12 on that
satellite list all occurred after 1998. As a result the 2000s were ~.2F warmer
than the 1990s. So what's special about 1998? Why was it so much higher
than 1997 to the point that almost every year after 1998 is between 1998 and the
years prior to 1998? Well you actually hit on a key point which is..."this could be due to natural variation,"1998 had the
strongest El Nino in half a century. El Nino years tend to be warmer and La Nina
years tend to be cooler. Studies that have attempted to filter out natural
variations show a warming trend continuing through the 2000s (rather than the
flatish line we see in that 15 year span). Those studies show the same
.15C/decade warming trend during the satellite era that the datasets also show
so it's not like they're suggesting there's additional warming,
just that 1998's El Nino is higher than it'd be without natural cycles
and years like 2008 2011 2012 La Nina years are lower than it'd be without
@Cats"1. I don't think we can do ANYTHING to change the
climate"Global dimming? (Our pollution problem 30 years ago that
we cleaned up).Acid rain? (We used cap and trade on the emissions that
made the acid rain issue worse, since then it's improved)Ozone hole?
(Now trending in the right direction after the Montreal Protocol). "4. I've seen too may scientists who don't believe in global
warming."Not many of them are climate scientists. Likewise I
wouldn't trust the weatherman to perform brain surgery."6.
The climate was much warmer a thousand years ago and life was much easier for
everyone."Most studies suggest that it was not warmer globally a
thousand years ago than it is now.
Twin LightsThere is no confusion. Climate is about longer time
periods of weather. But they are both connected. Scientists,
have skin in the game to get government funding (therefore they are political)
for studies like these. Funding from politicians. And it doesn't matter
who is in the White House, as any bill passed by Congress contains billions of
pork dollars aimed at stuff like this. If the line item veto still existed, then
maybe a President could be held accountable, but it gets passed because more
important items are needed to be funded. Almost 17 trillion debt and
If Obama really believed in climate change and the urgency of doing something to
combat the output of CO2 into the atmosphere, he should be parking Air Force 1,
except for events that could not be handled via Skype. Anything else is just
the liberal ploy of establishing policies and practiced that apply to everybody
else.To "Twin Lights" the NASA surface temperature data is
highly questionable. Just look at the distribution of stations. They are
located mainly in the US, southern Canada, Western Europe, the rest of the world
has few stations recording data. The more accurate satelite data shows that
there has been little to no warming over the past 30 years.To
"Allisdair" they sure are in session, and I think they are going to
nominate Obama and his cronies for lifetime membership.To "Baron
Scarpia" wind and solar are not working so well. Those projects would never
be produced if it wasn't the $20+ per megawatthour of energy produced
(beyond the same tax breaks that other power sources also get). If it was so
good, why does it need massive subsidies to be competitive with gas, coal, and
happy2bhere,You are confusing weather with climate. The lack of
consensus is political not scientific.Most of the scientists keeping
the "liberal party line" have the same line they did under conservative
Republican administrations. If you think this is a conspiracy ask yourself how
you control academics (an unruly lot) of virtually every political stripe,
language and culture. Such control would make the Mafia weep.Happy
Valley Heretic,I understand. But I am not trying to stir hornets.
Rather to challenge assumptions based on politics vs. science.FelisConcolorSo we can change nothing? We throw up our hands in
defeat and allow our grandchildren to suffer for our stupidity (like with our
national debt)? The US cannot lead the way? Treaties with other nations will
not help? We are powerless victims of the will of other countries so
let’s just pollute ourselves because what others do makes it okay (mom,
all the other countries get to pollute, why can’t I?)?Seriously, the problem is difficult, not impossible. The economics will
adapt. The nations that invent the technologies to help here will benefit.Again, I do not care about what the President said or did not say.
@JPAnd so we seem to be seeing the same lack of consensus on the so
called Climate Change issue. Climate change is as certain as the seasons every
year. And every year nets different temperature results. That hockey stick
graph that had lots of people worried has been challenged by lots of people. So
who do you believe? Probably the ones with whom you agree with politically.
Which of course brings me back to my point that science has been corrupted by
@happy2behearNewsweek did a story in 1975 predicting an ice age so
everyone assumes that was the scientific consensus of the time. However, there
was no real scientific consensus on global warming in the 70's,
'though based on the few published scientific papers they were tilting
slightly more toward warming than cooling.Or you could be referring
to the Time cover from 1977 with the penguin that says "How to Survive the
Coming Ice Age" but that one is actually a hoax. The real title was
"The Global Warming Survival Guide".
Just one more reason, that we have the wrong man in ofice. I didn't expect
to live long enough to see this happen in this great country that my Ancestors
fought for in every war since the Revolutionary War, to and including the
present day battles.
Twin your trowing stones a a hornets nest and casting pearls before swine. The same posters who predicted a landslide win by romney are going to
continue to be disappointed by their mentors on am radio....and a race to the bottom is not a solution
The Obama administration has a stellar record: 100%.One Hundred Percent
wrong on every issue, every time. Wait until the full force of the
"Affordable (that's a good one!) Care Act" hits, for example.
People who continue to believe in Federal solutions to problems either
haven't been paying any attention, or somehow cling to the idea that these
brilliant people in Washington always know more than the rest of us--despite the
unending evidence to the contrary. But sooner or later you'd have to think
that the totally ridiculous would become somewhat obvious.
Question to all you believers. Why did your movement change the term from
Global Warming to Climate Change? It is to cover your bases? I suspect so,
since it was only back in the '70s that scientists were worried about the
coming Ice Age. The first question we all should ask of any
scientist today is who is feathering their nest? If they are on the government
dole, then they had better be keeping the liberal party line if they want
continued funding. Pure science, I'm afraid, is hard to find. Agenda
driven science unfortunately is driving a lot of opinion. Science should be as
seperate from government as many of you want religion to be. Otherwise science
becomes an extension of politics.
Twin LightsYou are operating under the false assumption that there
is something which can be done to stop global warming. There isn't.Even if you shut down every internal combustion engine and every
fossil-fuel power plant in America the ambient carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
would increase every year because the US accounts for only about 20% of global
anthropogenic carbon emissions. In the meantime, the economic fallout of such
draconian actions would impoverish Americans and lead to even more misery and
death than doing nothing at all.These regulations proposed by
President Obama would cut US carbon emissions only slightly and do nothing to
stop the increase in global CO2 concentration. If you believe that increasing
carbon emissions will create runaway global warming then his actions yesterday
are little more than a feel-good Band-Aid which will enrich a few, impoverish
many, and do nothing to solve the actual problem.
re. Twin Lights: "Go to the NASA website for Average Surface Temperature.
Look at the graphs and data for yourself. The trends are clear."Unfortunately, these days science is only clear if it already agrees with
one's current thinking. Otherwise it's either skewed or part of a
Blue:The conventional wisdom that the earth is warming may be
growing "every day", but the actual temperature data do not agree.
According to satellite data 1998 is still the hottest recorded year, and global
temperatures have remained on a plateau since then; the global average
temperature in 2008 was identical to where it was in 1988.At this
point, measured global temperatures have fallen below the predicted levels of
almost every computer model, which suggests the hysterical sky-is-falling
scenarios used to justify sweeping, restrictive regulations are less and less
plausible.Now, this could be due to natural variation, or heat
absorption by oceans, or increased particulate pollution in China. But since
the earth is not heating as quickly as everyone claimed it would 20 years ago, a
little less hysteria and a little more reason would be nice.
I'm amazed there are people who think US liberals invented climate change.
Most of the rest of the world acknowledges the problem and wonders how we can be
so blind. Whenever climate change is discussed I'm embarrassed
to be a Republican.
CatsIt may be such an attempt. But the issue precedes him and will
survive him.Can we change the climate? Yes. We have done so
repeatedly in the past on a smaller scale. You live in Utah. Where do you get
your water? How did the desert bloom? I have seen us say the same thing about
rivers and oceans (too big to fill or impact). We were wrong.Is
warming harmful? Maybe not in tiny amounts. But the effect compounds. What
about your grandchildren? Why would it be beneficial?Yes we need to
adjust. But part of that adjustment is to slow down our filling the atmosphere
with our waste products.There are few scientists (who are climate
scientists) who don’t believe in climate change. Yes, there is
disagreement on the pace and scope of change (which would be expected), but not
the basic issue.Survival is different from thriving.county mom,No I am not an environmentalist (my friends would think
that description to be odd).I do not advocate drastic or Luddite
responses. But we need to get our heads out of the sand and get to work on the
This is a complete attempt to deflect attention away from his lousy performance
as president. Terrible on the economy, scandals galore and the embarrassment of
being unable to get the Russians to turn Snowden over.1. I
don't think we can do ANYTHING to change the climate.2. Even if the
climate is warming, I'm not convinced it is harmful. It's probably
beneficial.3. Instead of bankrupting ourselves trying to do something
that's impossible, we need to adjust.4. I've seen too may
scientists who don't believe in global warming.5. The climate has
been changing for millions of years and we've always survived.6. The
climate was much warmer a thousand years ago and life was much easier for
everyone.I wish we could stop this hysteria, stop wasting a fortune
on it and get on with life.
Barry is totally out of touch. Only 3 1/2 years left.
Iowa gets about 25 percent of its electricity from wind. Oregon, Colorado, and
Idaho get over 10 percent each from wind. Solar accounted for almost 50 percent
of all new electricity capacity developed in the first quarter of 2013.If renewables are such a failure, why are they working so well and literally
booming in growth? I look at eBay and Ikea here in the Utah with
their giant solar arrays and the rapid payback those companies claim
they're getting from those investments... even Walmart is aggressively
pursuing renewables so that it can stabilize its energy costs (remember,
renewable energy is price stable and predictable -- no volatile fossil fuel
costs) and not have to rely on utility monopolies. What is it that
these states and companies see in renewables that folks in Utah can't see?
Why is the GOP so concerned about protecting coal unions and unionized coal
jobs? Romney's siding with coal and rejection of renewable
energy in Iowa and Colorado probably cost him those conservative states in the
election... Renewable energy is pumping millions into those state's
economies. Coal's pollution and black lung disease is simply creating more
need for ObamaCare (and RomneyCare)...
I guess the Utah Flat Earth Society is in session.I hope you enjoy
Maybe he is right, maybe he is wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day but
does anybody rely on it? The problem is that he is SO done. Nobody cares what
Obama says anymore.
Act Now....Hurry kill more jobs before the economy starts to recover!After
all why would this president want to save our economy? Twin Lights, What
do you do to make a living?Are you just another EPA governmental worker?
or are you one of the many paid environmentalists that we get to deal with?Maybe you are one of those people who buy into the whole pack of lies and live
off the grid?Actually "NOT" you are writing on a computer and I am
sure you are consuming things too. Your point are not valid unless you
practice what you preach! Do not produce ANY green house gases and we will
give you the time of day!
Fellas, the science behind the reality of human-caused climate change grows
every day. How about instead of citing that thoroughly debunked Daily Mail
article, you read the the findings of the National Academies of Science?NASA is part of some kind of conspiracy? Seriously? Do you have the
tiniest understanding of how the scientific review process works? NASA could no
more muzzle its climate researchers than it could fake the moon landing. Oh
wait, you probably believe in that conspiracy theory, too."You
have to be extremely naive to actually believe that we can pass more laws in
this country which will unilaterally change the climate."Sure -
just like we naively believed we could remove lead from gasoline, require cars
to be equipped with airbags and seat belts, control CFC's through treaties
to avoid the complete destruction of the ozone layer and pass laws to regulate
how much toxic waste factories can dump into our rivers. Yep, that's naive
" . . . let's drop the politics . . "??? When you're talking
about politicians and their agendas, it's ALL about politics. One reason
we're in so much trouble in this country is that too many people fail to
understand and recognize that government IS politics.
Mountainman and Woodyff,I am unconcerned about Pres. Obama or any
other president. The issue is what we need to be looking at long-term.Since you like Hans von Storch, here is a quote from the original Spiegel
interview:"SPIEGEL: Despite all these problem areas, do you
still believe global warming will continue?""Storch: Yes, we
are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees
Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you."The following is from Bjorn Lomborg:"The president should
instead ask the rest of the world to follow the U.S. lead on green innovation.
Economic models show that this is by far the best, long-term climate policy. If
we all invested far more to innovate down the cost of future green energy, we
could outcompete fossil fuels faster and truly solve global warming."Nils-Axel Morner does dispute sea level rise. He may have a point. He
may not. But he also champions dowsing. Of the two (climate change or dowsing)
I will go with the former.Climate scientists worldwide are on the
side of climate change.Please, let's drop the politics.
‘Obama says time to act is now on climate change’Yeah,
before this fizzles out like so many other discredited green fallacies that
litter the landscape.
Hey Twin Lights; NASA is part of our government's hysteria on global
warming, and recent news shows we can't trust our government; read this"Global warming stopped 16 years ago...." it is from the UK Daily
Mail, Google it! You can't trust the US media lapdogs for Obama. We need
jobs, families are struggling to make it, now Obama will raise the cost of
You have to be extremely naive to actually believe that we can pass more laws in
this country which will unilaterally change the climate. Even if it worked
(which it won't), Hello! Has anyone noticed that there are actually other
countries and economies on the planet, and that they don't automatically
buy into and adhere to all the political gyrations and machinations that come
out of Washington? Like I say, extremely naive at best.
Twin lights. Read what German, Swedish, Danish and Russian scientist have
published about the data you are referring to. The trends are clear.
Mountainman,Go to the NASA website for Average Surface Temperature.
Look at the graphs and data for yourself. The trends are clear.
Do liberals have any idea how much COAL it took to build the United States to
the point where most of us have access to health care, education, homes, running
water, other infrastructure? There are developing nations in Asia
who NEED and WANT out coal to develop to the same degree we have. Barack and liberals have some gall to tell these developing nations "go
build wind farms"We enjoyed the benefits of coal for hundreds of
years to take this country to economic prosperity And liberals want
to tell everyone else "sorry only we get to use coal"Now you
have to use "clean" energyNever mind they can't afford
it. That's their problem. Barack and liberals are fighting the
export of coal to these nationsAn I thought liberals took care of
Right on Pipes!The Dear Leader is will do ANYTHING to take the heat
off his myriad of scandals.
In a June 20 interview with Spiegel Online, German climate scientist Hans von
Storch said that despite predictions of a warming planet the temperature data
for the past 15 years shows an increase of 0.06 or “very close to zero.“The climate system is not quite so simple as people
thought,” said Bjorn Lomborg, a Danish statistician and author of
“The Skeptical Environmentalist” who estimates that moderate warming
will be beneficial for crop growth and human health.According to
Swedish paleogeophysicist Nils-Axel Mörner, who’s been studying and
writing about sea levels for four decades, "the scientists working for the
IPCC have falsified data and destroyed evidence to incorrectly prove their
claims of global warming"!A prolonged decline in solar output
will begin sometime around 2040 and subject the Earth to global cooling that
will last 200-250 years, scientists at Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory
report.Gee, it seems the only "scientists" still promoting
the climate change hoax are Democrats here in the US!
Several "green" company failures at the taxpayers expense and Obama
thinks we need to act on climate change. This is not the time for another
Solyndra or Aptera Motors. He needs to shelve his iffy climate policies.
He's out of his depth.
Time to act is now on unemployment, the economy and many other issues as well.
He's just spewing more mindless rhetoric to appease the liberal masses.