Global Warming/Climate Change

[UNT90]

.

Always look both ways when crossing a street.... yes it usually will be a waste of time... no one will be coming but you still need to do it.

No where have I or most here claimed man is absolutely cause the melting.... but it is happening.... but in case we are causing it, we should not be doing something stupid (like doing nothing). .. besides cleaning up the air is not a bad thing anyway... ask the people of L.A. (smog) or China. Your claim of people saying it will increase the oceans by 20 feet is a bit radical as well... Some yes but 20 feet.??? That is only by extremists in the other direction...

Science learning did not stop when you were in the 7th grade and yes 40 years from now we likely will know even more... I know "conservative" means don't change anything, things are great now or before now... which seems to be your attitude to EVERYTHING.

I regularly tell my students [ college classes ] that the world outside the window will not be the same when they become the age I am..... I have seen TV, cable, satellites, cell phones, PCs, the internet, cell phones, the interstate, jet travel, and so much more show up in my lifetime.... My grandfather as a kid got out of a wagon on the Texas prairie and was home on land that had never been owned by anyone before except by the State of Texas .. and he was home... no house, no town nearby, no railroad, nothing.... . times and knowledge change... even if you still want to be in the 7th grade again....

PS: the picture I use is my grandfather (above) was about 1899 just prior to getting married.... I admire what he did and realize the difficult times he lived in. ... things change.

No kidding.

Nothing wrong with curbing pollution. It is the proper thing to do.

Costing people their livelihoods on a theory is something completely different. Many of the climate change movement will never be happy with any concessions made by industry. They will (and have) always want more.

Therein lies the problem.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- You better be glad we have government regulations controlling pollution... They would be dumping horrible stuff everywhere because it is is cheaper to do so and they would have to do that to compete (and still exist) with those others that were doing it... There are areas in west Texas that won't grow weeds (too much salt, oil, or chemicals in ground now). Water wells south of Midland are now undrinkable due to chemicals in ground and that also means for cattle which people raise for food.... even if the cows survive you will get to eat that stuff. This is all due to companies dumping stuff that should not have been dumped decades ago ..... You live in a dream world and want no government control of anything.. Trust me.... if we didn't have government food inspections... no telling what would be happening there too.

--- I have this friend on Facebook who is extremely radical conservative but oddly has been complaining about Congress trying to cut her social security and medicare benefits... well it is the party that she supports that is trying to do it .... not the one that actually proposed and passed it to begin with .... she is clueless... The party that started this insane debt climb as of 2001 is the one that claims to be conservative ....[ I thought financial conservative meant don't spend more than you take in ... they think just collect less taxes ] and they still want to cut taxes more which would increase it more and really screw things up... Nothing comes free .... Get a real education and not just a degree. ( 7th grade isn't much of an education either ).

------

You can argue that cutting pollution is costing jobs... it is ... but it also creates jobs too ... THINK.... plus is creates a cleaner, safer world ... not a bad thing.

Edited February 21, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[FirefightnRick]

Besides Balling and Micheals and the other scientists 90 has listed, here is another who questions the man-made global warming myth...Dr. Garth Paltridge, who has studied atmospheric physcs for over 45 years, gives a good opinion as to how the MMGW craze got started.

"Climate Changes Inherent Uncertainties"

http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2014/01-02/fundamental-uncertainties-climate-change/

.....In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problemin its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of societys respect for scientific endeavour. Trading reputational capital for short-term political gain isnt the most sensible way of going about things.

The trap was set in the late 1970s or thereabouts when the environmental movement first realised that doing something about global warming would play to quite a number of its social agendas. At much the same time, it became accepted wisdom around the corridors of power that government-funded scientists (that is, most scientists) should be required to obtain a goodly fraction of their funds and salaries from external sourcesexternal anyway to their own particular organisation.

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. For that sort of activity, an arms-length association with the environmental movement would be a union made in heaven. Among other things it would provide a means by which scientists could distance themselves from responsibility for any public overstatement of the significance of their particular research problem.

The trap was partially sprung in climate research when a number of the relevant scientists began to enjoy the advocacy business. The enjoyment was based on a considerable increase in funding and employment opportunity. The increase was not so much on the hard-science side of things but rather in the emerging fringe institutes and organisations devoted, at least in part, to selling the message of climatic doom. A new and rewarding research lifestyle emerged which involved the giving of advice to all types and levels of government, the broadcasting of unchallengeable opinion to the general public, and easy justification for attendance at international conferencesthis last in some luxury by normal scientific experience, and at a frequency previously unheard of.

Somewhere along the line it came to be believed by many of the public, and indeed by many of the scientists themselves, that climate researchers were the equivalent of knights on white steeds fighting a great battle against the forces of evilevil, that is, in the shape of big oil and its supposedly unlimited money. The delusion was more than a little attractive.

The trap was fully sprung when many of the worlds major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.

Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster. It can no longer use the environmental movement as a scapegoat if it should turn out that the threat of global warming has no real substance. It can no longer escape prime responsibility if it should turn out in the end that doing something in the name of mitigation of global warming is the costliest scientific mistake ever visited on humanity. The current redirection of global funds in the name of climate change is of the order of a billion dollars a day. And in the future, to quote US Senator Everett Dirksen, a billion here and a billion there, and pretty soon well be talking about real money.

At the same time, the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.....

Rick

Edited February 21, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[GreenBat]

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/play-it-again-january-continues-globes-warm-trend-17097

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

.

Rick ... just keep it simple..... where did the ice in those pictures go ..... and why? ... if things aren't getting warmer.. ?

I am not saying man caused it.

[UNTFan23]

Wow.

So tell me this. With the ice caps melting away at record pace, why aren't the oceans rising as previously predicted?

Well, water expands when it freezes, so if much of the polar ice that is melting is actually floating on sea water, it's possible sea levels won't change all that much. Now if the polar ice was sitting on land above sea level then I would expect sea levels to increase. I couldn't tell you if all that ice is sitting on land or water though.

[FirefightnRick]

.

Rick ... just keep it simple..... where did the ice in those pictures go ..... and why? ... if things aren't getting warmer.. ?

I am not saying man caused it.

Not sure how more simple it gets when a 45 year researching atmospheric physicist tells me there's not much to worry about? But if your needing me to tell you then i say rely on some common sense and realize it went to the same place all the ice from the LAST ice age went to......the ocean.

Rick

Edited February 21, 2014 by FirefightnRick

[Quoner]

It's poetry in motion

The ice caps didn't melt upon the sea

Or deepen up the ocean

As liberals say in harmony

Mmm - but she blinded me with biased conjecture with a political agenda

"She blinded me with biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

And failed me in biology

When I'm dancing close to her

"Blinding me with biased conjecture with a political agenda - biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

I can smell the chemicals

"Blinding me with biased conjecture with a political agenda - biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

"biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

"biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

Mmm - but it's poetry in motion

The ice caps didn't melt upon the sea

Or deepen up the ocean

As liberals say in harmony

Mmm - but she blinded me with biased conjecture with a political agenda

And failed me in geometry

When she's dancing next to me

"Blinding me with biased conjecture with a political agenda - biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

"Biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

I can hear machinery

"Blinding me with biased conjecture with a political agenda - biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

"Biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

It's poetry in motion

And now she's making love to me

The spheres're in commotion

The answers with UNT90

She blinded me with biased conjecture with a political agenda

"She blinded me with biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

And hit me with technology

"Good heavens GMG.com - you're beautiful!"

I -

I don't believe it!

There she goes again!

She's tidied up, and I can't find anything!

All my tubes and wires

And careful notes

And antiquated notions

But! - it's poetry in motion

And when she turned her eyes to me

As deep as any ocean

As sweet as the fake lonnie

Mmm - but she blinded me with biased conjecture with a political agenda

"She blinded me with - with biased conjecture with a political agenda!"

She blinded me with - well, you get it.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Not sure how more simple it gets when a 45 year researching atmospheric physicist tells me there's not much to worry about? But if your needing me to tell you then i say rely on some common sense and realize it went to the same place all the ice from the LAST ice age went to......the ocean.

Rick

.

--- But you are denying it exists and that oceans are not raising any (or it looks that you are... NOTE .. you just mentioned the ice melting was going into the ocean which would raise it.).. I am not stating man is causing it but I am not saying we aren't either. It is like crossing the street ... maybe we should be careful ... maybe a car is coming, maybe not... we might be and it would be the pits later to learn we could have done something. You seem to be against that and purely on political basis .. I am not the radical claiming it is going up 20 feet and soon but even a few feet is a problem to towns and land near the coast. ............. besides cleaning up the air we breath isn't a bad thing anyway.

As for the 45 physicist.... not all are right.....Some say the opposite.......... The Pope ( who was thought infallible) insisted the world was flat .... it wasn't. ..... Besides as pictures show ... ice has melted and it seems to be still happening..... it is not about temperatures in various towns...... but more about the ice, rising ocean water, and maybe increased rain/snow on land due to faster ocean evaporation due to increased water temperature. .... ( seen any of that this winter? )

What has liberal/conservative have to do with ice melting ... it is or it isn't.......... Apparently I am far more conservative than most that claim they are .... I hate that the debt went up (more than doubled) and all that is happening as a result.... [ it started when the last guy was there and with a Congress of the same party ].... DON'T spend money you don't have.... personally or government-wise.

Edited February 21, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GTWT]

Dr. Garth Paltridge, who has studied atmospheric physcs for over 45 years, gives a good opinion as to how the MMGW craze got started....

Rick

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=104

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreviewedskeptics.php?s=104

Your link opens to:

This page lists any peer-reviewed papers by Garth Paltridge that take a negative or explicitly doubtful position on human-caused global warming.

There are no peer-reviewed climate papers by Garth Paltridge that meet this definition.

Ha Ha Ha!

Rick

[MeanGreenTexan]

Your link opens to:

Ha Ha Ha!

Rick

I think that's his point though Rick, Garth Paltridge doesn't have any peer reviewed papers. So anything he has out there, is not peer reviewed.

[3XNTGRAD]

For the 6th time, care to address any of the peer reviewed science from the authors I listed? You know, the peer reviewed science that disagrees with the ascertion that man made global warming is happening?

Or will you continue to ignore science?

Here is someone who has looked at peer-reviewed research on global warming, Dr. James L. Powell (former member of the National Science Board appointed by Pres. Reagan and Pres. G.H.W. Bush) notes on his website that of 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change” in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, he found only 24 that explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. He provides details on his methodology, so anyone can repeat the work and review his findings.

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

[FirefightnRick]

Here is someone who has looked at peer-reviewed research on global warming, Dr. James L. Powell (former member of the National Science Board appointed by Pres. Reagan and Pres. G.H.W. Bush) notes on his website that of 13,950 articles on global warming or global climate change in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, he found only 24 that explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. He provides details on his methodology, so anyone can repeat the work and review his findings.

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

i wasnt aware that Science was about a show of hands these days?

Rick

[3XNTGRAD]

i wasnt aware that Science was about a show of hands these days?

Rick

I was responding directly to a request to address the list of authors provided by UNT90.

This isn't a list of scientific opinions, it is a list of peer-reviewed papers. If the science was strong against global warming, then where is the scientific data?

[FirefightnRick]

I was responding directly to a request to address the list of authors provided by UNT90.

This isn't a list of scientific opinions, it is a list of peer-reviewed papers. If the science was strong against global warming, then where is the scientific data?

Where is the data? It's there you just don't like it.

Rick

[UNT90]

Here is someone who has looked at peer-reviewed research on global warming, Dr. James L. Powell (former member of the National Science Board appointed by Pres. Reagan and Pres. G.H.W. Bush) notes on his website that of 13,950 articles on global warming or global climate change in the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, he found only 24 that explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. He provides details on his methodology, so anyone can repeat the work and review his findings.

http://www.jamespowell.org/index.html

Words, my friend. They are important.

Look at what you highlighted. "Explicitly rejected" means that all peer reviewed science that suggest this MAY not be caused by man or we just don't know are not on his list.

It's a smooth and clever way of wording to give the false appearance that this literature does not exist.

But he doesn't have an agenda, does he?

Edited February 22, 2014 by UNT90

[UNT90]

Lets take a look at the National Science Board's budget, shall we?

http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2012/nsf12045/nsf12045.pdf

Almost 6 billion in 2011.

They also provide 59% of all government funding for environmental science.

If global warning was proven to be out of human control, I wonder how much of a budget hit they would take? How much more do they get by being alarmists?

Anyone who doesn't think money figures into this equation is a fool.

[GTWT]

UNT90 has a poor understanding of how science works. He thinks all scientists (except maybe those who agree with him) are hyping anthropogenic climate change to line their pockets with taxpayer money. I think a bit of projection is involved - just because profit is the only motive UNT90 understands he thinks that's what motivates everyone. Just maybe the scientists working on climate change are motivated by a real desire to avoid the worst consequences of human stupidity. Maybe they have kids and grandkids and want to save those kids from having to deal with our mess - with having to live in a degraded world.

Man's evolutionary heritage means that we will nearly always choose short-term gain over long-term good. That was okay when our ancestors were lining hand-to-mouth on the edges of the retreating glaciers. Today however, it means we choose maintaining our lifestyle over our children's well-being.

On March 19 of 2013 my wife gave birth to my son. I want him to live in a world of wonder and diversity. I want him to see polar bears and glaciers. I want him to be able to get a good education and earn a good living. I want him to have kids of his own. The short-sightedness of climate deniers risks robbing him of a quality life. I resent the stupidity of ideologues who put his future at risk.

[FirefightnRick]

UNT90 has a poor understanding of how science works. He thinks all scientists (except maybe those who agree with him) are hyping anthropogenic climate change to line their pockets with taxpayer money. I think a bit of projection is involved - just because profit is the only motive UNT90 understands he thinks that's what motivates everyone. Just maybe the scientists working on climate change are motivated by a real desire to avoid the worst consequences of human stupidity. Maybe they have kids and grandkids and want to save those kids from having to deal with our mess - with having to live in a degraded world.

Man's evolutionary heritage means that we will nearly always choose short-term gain over long-term good. That was okay when our ancestors were lining hand-to-mouth on the edges of the retreating glaciers. Today however, it means we choose maintaining our lifestyle over our children's well-being.

On March 19 of 2013 my wife gave birth to my son. I want him to live in a world of wonder and diversity. I want him to see polar bears and glaciers. I want him to be able to get a good education and earn a good living. I want him to have kids of his own. The short-sightedness of climate deniers risks robbing him of a quality life. I resent the stupidity of ideologues who put his future at risk.

You left out world peace, free energy, equality and fairness to all, by all in every way imaginable.

(You know Im having fun with you, congrats on the new addition by the way.)

Now back to the debate..........

Rick

[UNT90]

UNT90 has a poor understanding of how science works. He thinks all scientists (except maybe those who agree with him) are hyping anthropogenic climate change to line their pockets with taxpayer money. I think a bit of projection is involved - just because profit is the only motive UNT90 understands he thinks that's what motivates everyone. Just maybe the scientists working on climate change are motivated by a real desire to avoid the worst consequences of human stupidity. Maybe they have kids and grandkids and want to save those kids from having to deal with our mess - with having to live in a degraded world.

Man's evolutionary heritage means that we will nearly always choose short-term gain over long-term good. That was okay when our ancestors were lining hand-to-mouth on the edges of the retreating glaciers. Today however, it means we choose maintaining our lifestyle over our children's well-being.

B

On March 19 of 2013 my wife gave birth to my son. I want him to live in a world of wonder and diversity. I want him to see polar bears and glaciers. I want him to be able to get a good education and earn a good living. I want him to have kids of his own. The short-sightedness of climate deniers risks robbing him of a quality life. I resent the stupidity of ideologues who put his future at risk.

Right.

Everything you just said about me, I could say the same thing about you, except that it applies to the other side if the political issue.

And make no mistake, it's a political issue.

[GreenBat]

Right.

Everything you just said about me, I could say the same thing about you, except that it applies to the other side if the political issue.

And make no mistake, it's a political issue.

No, it's not a political issue. It's a quality of life issue. Let's say there is just a 1 percent chance that there is climate change. Let's say that the climate change can be prevented, by taking care of the Earth. Limiting CO2 and other gasses that "Supposedly" cause damage to the planet. Why would the inhabitants of the planet not be willing to make those changes?

[UNT90]

No, it's not a political issue. It's a quality of life issue. Let's say there is just a 1 percent chance that there is climate change. Let's say that the climate change can be prevented, by taking care of the Earth. Limiting CO2 and other gasses that "Supposedly" cause damage to the planet. Why would the inhabitants of the planet not be willing to make those changes?

As long as those changes didn't cost jobs or hurt the economy. I have no problem with it.

I do have a problem with people trying to present a 1% chance as a 100% chance for their own benefit, monetary and political.

Don't you?

[GreenBat]

Yes, but I have bigger problem with Corporations paying people to LIE about what is happening for their own benefit, monetary and political.

I care about the future of our planet.

Do you?

[FirefightnRick]

"Volcanic eruptions contributed to global warming pause, scientists claim"

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/volcanic-eruptions-contributed-to-global-warming-pause-scientists-claim-9147856.html

Experts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California said this phenomenon was not taken into account when predictions were made offering an explanation for why the world seemed to stop heating up.

We show that climate model simulations without the effects of early 21st century volcanic eruptions overestimate the tropospheric warming observed since 1998, wrote Dr Benjamin Santer in the journal Nature Geoscience.

So this guy in California agrees with his peers in Australia that the earth hasn't warmed up the past 17 years?

Rick

Edited February 24, 2014 by FirefightnRick