NBC hit piece on "Climate change" airing now

[UNT90]

Lack of glaciers in Cleveland hasn't improved the town much.

So you are saying there were glaciers in Albuquerque???

[oldguystudent]

So you are saying there were glaciers in Albuquerque???

The only thing one need know about Albuquerque is to turn left.

[UNT90]

The only thing one need know about Albuquerque is to turn left.

Before you enter New Mexico.

[KingDL1]

Every scientific theory is falsifiable. That's a strength, not a weakness. New data, or better interpretations of old data, will lead to theories being replaced or, more likely, modified. For example evolutionary theory was modified when Mendel's rules of inheritance were discovered and interpretated. That modification of evolutionary theory didn't destroy Darwin's theory, rather it made it stronger.

Let's look at the facts behind climate change. 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. 2) There are massive ammounts of CO2 released into the atmosphere through man's burning of fossil fuels. 3) The earth's mean temperature is increasing at a rate that correlates with CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere.

From these three basic facts a reasonable person would conclude that further increases in CO2 will result in further warming and further changes in climate associated with warming. Our best models suggest the effects on man's environment from these climatic changes will be deliterious. Don't believe the models? Come up with more data or better models. Until you do, these analyses are the best available science.

You should really question your facts and who hand picks them. I am not sure why you think these so called scientists have something as complex as what they are proposing even close to correct. Just read a Solar scientist of your choice and read up on the expectations of the solar cycle just ending, and the next one beginning. Having one of the most active solar cycles on record can have answer any warming trend data we have. Also there are no corrected temperatures for urban grown. Take DFW airport 40 years ago was in the country, surrounded by cotton fields as far as you could see. Now it is surrounded by the city, for example if you look up the hottest days on record in DFW the summer of 1980 you will find that in July we had two days of 113 degrees back to back. If you look up the temps at Love Field those days they were 117 & 118 degrees but Love was in the City, a smaller city at that. It is known that the urban areas tend to run as much as 5-6 degrees warmer than its rural neighbor. But yet there is no adjustment for airports being absorbed by the cities around them. when comparing historical temperatures. Point is CO2 or not put enough concrete, structures, and more around the places they are pulling the temperature from the readings will get warmer and urban areas hold temperature better when cooling at night.

I have always read that CO2 was thought to be a greenhouse gas I never saw it proved not sure how that is a fact, or where it was suddenly proven in an open atmosphere. I think some people are jumping to make things fact.

[UNT90]

Showtime apparently starting their own series on global warming. Advertising that many Hollywood stars will make guest appearances to push the new religion.

So scientific.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

--- Global warming is not so much about warmer temperatures over land in general .... It is about poles getting warmer and melting ice plus ice/snow melting at high elevations ... plus the oceans which cover mosts of the earth getting warmier .. which in turn increases water evaporation..... This increased evaporation can cause cause more rain and even more snow in cold weather and actually result in many places being cooler on land..

--- Does it exist and why ... ?? Well there is less ice at the poles now sthan several years ago, every glacier in Alaska is getting smaller except four at mouths of rivers and they are increasing due to more water coming down from higher elevations (melted ice?).... Many mountains that once had snow caps year around don't now ... and Glacier National Park barely has any compared to what it once had... The above seem to indicate to me it exists somewhat..... as for the reason.... that is the big question .... Is it naturally occurring or man caused.?? You get to make your mind up on both issues. It seems to me a lot of people just don't understand what the warming really is...... it doesn't mean most land places will be warmer.... it is mostly about the poles and oceans but also some about year round snow and ice disappearing. NY harbor authorities claim the ocean is now about 1 foot above what it was 100 years ago ... The big problem that might result is the oceans getting higher and more bad weather problems which includes more snow (due to more ocean evaporation) in cold weather.

Believe as you want... nothing will be solved here. .... Why some make this political seems odd. .. it is all science...... I am so old I remember people claiming we would get to the moon was ridiculous and so many other scientific thing that were predicted. ... some were right and some were wrong.. but in general.. most were right... I posted this on a home computer on the internet and anywhere in the world it can be read... I'm sure few people when I was in high school would believed that one if I said I could do that in my lifetime .. Even Star-Trek in the 60's used "communicators" aka cell phones now ..[ that was ridiculous then too ] Over 90% of climatologists believe in it happening.. meaning less than 10% don't.. I vote with the majority on this... but I am not convinced as to why it exists ...

Edited April 13, 2014 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[UNT90]

--- Global warming is not so much about warmer temperatures over land in general .... It is about poles getting warmer and melting ice plus ice/snow melting at high elevations ... plus the oceans which cover mosts of the earth getting warmier .. which in turn increases water evaporation..... This increased evaporation can cause cause more rain and even more snow in cold weather and actually result in many places being cooler on land..

--- Does it exist and why ... ?? Well there is less ice at the poles now sthan several years ago, every glacier in Alaska is getting smaller except four at mouths of rivers and they are increasing due to more water coming down from higher elevations (melted ice?).... Many mountains that once had snow caps year around don't now ... and Glacier National Park barely has any compared to what it once had... The above seem to indicate to me it exists somewhat..... as for the reason.... that is the big question .... Is it naturally occurring or man caused.?? You get to make your mind up on both issues. It seems to me a lot of people just don't understand what the warming really is...... it doesn't mean most land places will be warmer.... it is mostly about the poles and oceans but also some about year round snow and ice disappearing. NY harbor authorities claim the ocean is now about 1 foot above what it was 100 years ago ... The big problem that might result is the oceans getting higher and more bad weather problems which includes more snow (due to more ocean evaporation) in cold weather.

Believe as you want... nothing will be solved here. .... Why some make this political seems odd. .. it is all science...... I am so old I remember people claiming we would get to the moon was ridiculous and so many other scientific thing that were predicted. ... some were right and some were wrong.. but in general.. most were right... I posted this on a home computer on the internet and anywhere in the world it can be read... I'm sure few people when I was in high school would believed that one if I said I could do that in my lifetime .. Even Star-Trek in the 60's used "communicators" aka cell phones now ..[ that was ridiculous then too ] Over 90% of climatologists believe in it happening.. meaning less than 10% don't.. I vote with the majority on this... but I am not convinced as to why it exists ...

It's not all science. Like a good leftist, you think if you say it enough times, it makes it so.

It's a coordinated political campaign aimed to increase taxes on industry and eventually individuals.

There is nothing scientific about it.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

It's not all science. Like a good leftist, you think if you say it enough times, it makes it so.

It's a coordinated political campaign aimed to increase taxes on industry and eventually individuals.

There is nothing scientific about it.

..

Wierd .. you even make that political.. Believe as you want... and some still think we never went to the moon. Like I said ... I am not convinced man is the cause... ( that is leftist? )

[CMJ]

It's not all science. Like a good leftist, you think if you say it enough times, it makes it so.

It's a coordinated political campaign aimed to increase taxes on industry and eventually individuals.

There is nothing scientific about it.

I mean if only US scientists said this, I guess you'd have a point. But scientists all over the world overwhelmingly support the idea.

[GTWT]

It's not all science. Like a good leftist, you think if you say it enough times, it makes it so.

It's a coordinated political campaign aimed to increase taxes on industry and eventually individuals.

There is nothing scientific about it.

Science is a leftist plot against capitalism, low taxes, and the American way of life.

I'm beginning to think your making this stuff up to make conservatists look bad.

Good job.

[UNT90]

I mean if only US scientists said this, I guess you'd have a point. But scientists all over the world overwhelmingly support the idea.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/foreign/

Read the second paragraph.

Research doesn't have to happen in the USA in order to get USA funds, at least not for medical research, and I'm sure not for something as dastardly as global warming.

You also have governments all over the free world funding these programs (England, Austrailia, Canada, etc...).

It's quit the sweet spot.

Edited April 14, 2014 by UNT90

[Censored by Laurie]

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/foreign/

Read the second paragraph.

Research doesn't have to happen in the USA in order to get USA funds, at least not for medical research, and I'm sure not for something as dastardly as global warming.

You also have governments all over the free world funding these programs (England, Austrailia, Canada, etc...).

It's quit the sweet spot.

How do you cover both your eyes and ears with only 2 hands?

[CMJ]

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/foreign/

Read the second paragraph.

Research doesn't have to happen in the USA in order to get USA funds, at least not for medical research, and I'm sure not for something as dastardly as global warming.

You also have governments all over the free world funding these programs (England, Austrailia, Canada, etc...).

It's quit the sweet spot.

Yes, but the USA is the only country in the free world where it's considered a political issue.

[MeanGreenTexan]

Yes, but the USA is the only country in the free world where it's considered a political issue.

Because EVERYTHING is a political issue here.

[UNT90]

Yes, but the USA is the only country in the free world where it's considered a political issue.

And idiotic agenda journalism like the program in the thread title does nothing but keep it a political issue.

As does outcome based government grant funding.

[GTWT]

'90, if something, anything, were to convince you the science was right - that anthropogenic climate change was going to have a devastating effect on the world's economy, agriculture, and quality of life - would that be enough to justify, in your mind, the immediate cost to you?

[LongJim]

And, of course, federal funds must be used to investigate ALL of these things.

I don't want to speak for Mike, but I believe this is what sticks in his craw the most. And, it is definitely what sticks in mine.

Also, those of us that have been around more than 2 decades have seen this type of charade before, and are rightly skeptical about a "scientist" predicting dire consequences about the earth's climate. Why? Because it allows for a never-ending funnel from your pocket to the government to try and "solve the issue" with "more study".

When--oh when--has that EVER turned out well? And, when did our elected officials become authorized to do this type of work?

[oldguystudent]

Government funded research cannot be trusted because it's a financial quagmire that people abuse for financial gain, skewing the results.

Privately funded research, on the other hand, is pure and pristine, so says Philip Morris.

Ergo, we should never trust science of any kind.

Edited April 15, 2014 by oldguystudent

[UNT90]

'90, if something, anything, were to convince you the science was right - that anthropogenic climate change was going to have a devastating effect on the world's economy, agriculture, and quality of life - would that be enough to justify, in your mind, the immediate cost to you?

If there was a actual correlation that was proven and consequences occurring from those results, of course. There isn't.

You never answered my question. Why are scientists on the "wrong" side of global warming always attacked personally by the believers of the new religion? Why don't they question the science instead of calling the scientists presenting it names?

[LongJim]

Government funded research cannot be trusted because it's a financial quagmire that people abuse for financial gain, skewing the results.

Privately funded research, on the other hand, is pure and pristine, so says Philip Morris.

Ergo, we should never trust science of any kind.

No, you should always be wary of *any* entity asking for funding from the government. You should always ask what the agenda is, and what the end game is. You should also ask where the money is going. And there is always an agenda. Much more difficult to remove government funded research once it is in place.

If government provides for it. We must need it. And, if we don't find a solution with all the research $ expended, well, we just need to throw MORE $ at it. After all, it works for the department of Ed, right?

[oldguystudent]

No, you should always be wary of *any* entity asking for funding from the government. You should always ask what the agenda is, and what the end game is. You should also ask where the money is going. And there is always an agenda. Much more difficult to remove government funded research once it is in place.

If government provides for it. We must need it. And, if we don't find a solution with all the research $ expended, well, we just need to throw MORE $ at it. After all, it works for the department of Ed, right?

I ultimately have no honest response. For me, on a meta level, government is inept and self preserving. Profit driven entities are heartless and evil with zero fucks given about collateral damage in pursuit of earnings per share.

So what do I do? No idea. Lose faith in humanity and its ultimately selfish nature?

[LongJim]

I ultimately have no honest response. For me, on a meta level, government is inept and self preserving. Profit driven entities are heartless and evil with zero fucks given about collateral damage in pursuit of earnings per share.

So what do I do? No idea. Lose faith in humanity and its ultimately selfish nature?

Yeah. I'm good with that. It's what I subscribe to.

[GTWT]

If there was a actual correlation that was proven and consequences occurring from those results, of course. There isn't.

You never answered my question. Why are scientists on the "wrong" side of global warming always attacked personally by the believers of the new religion? Why don't they question the science instead of calling the scientists presenting it names?

'90, nothing is ever 'proven ' in science. Even the best supported theories - e.g., gravity and evolution - are tentative explanations for how the universe works. I know that's frustrating. You want certainty but that's not how science works. The tentative nature of scientific theories is actually a strength. It means minds stay open to new data and new interpretations. All that's asked is that each scientist lets the data dictate the conclusion. And that, I think, is why climate scientists such as Roy Spencer are held in low regard by their colleagues. Spencer doesn't believe climate change will be bad because God wouldn't let man damage creation. That's not a scientific reason for doubting the effects of anthropogenic climate change and so he isn't respected.

Any scientist who disagrees with the consensus on climate change because they have better data or a better interpretation of existing data will be listened to. But too often the the disagreement comes down to economics, or politics, or philosophy, or religion, or ideology. Those aren't reasons for denying science and deserve no respect among scientists.

[GTWT]

For those science denial enthusiasts among you who like to believe that climate change is real but may be caused by natural fluctuations in sun spots or some other non-anthropogenic factor please see this review of research by Dr. Shaun Lovejoy, a physicist at McGill Universoty -

http://www.labmanager.com/news/2014/04/is-global-warming-just-a-giant-natural-fluctuation-

“This study will be a blow to any remaining climate-change deniers,” Lovejoy says. “Their two most convincing arguments – that the warming is natural in origin, and that the computer models are wrong – are either directly contradicted by this analysis, or simply do not apply to it.”

Of course '90 will make a case that Dr. Lovejoy was paid to do the study by the pro-tax/anti-corporate lobby.

Edited April 18, 2014 by GTWT

[UNT90]

For those science denial enthusiasts among you who like to believe that climate change is real but may be caused by natural fluctuations in sun spots or some other non-anthropogenic factor please see this review of research by Dr. Shaun Lovejoy, a physicist at McGill Universoty -

http://www.labmanager.com/news/2014/04/is-global-warming-just-a-giant-natural-fluctuation-

A researcher claiming HIS research has all the answers.

Shocking.

But keep on preaching the new good word, my brother.

Of course '90 will make a case that Dr. Lovejoy was paid to do the study by the pro-tax/anti-corporate lobby.