Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#3,577
#3,577
NOAA adjusts their data so it's bunk

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/august-was-coldest-in-five-years-second-coldest-in-ten-years/

Contrary to the spectacular “hottest August ever” lies being propagated by NASA GISS and NOAA ahead of Obama’s climate conference – August was the coldest in five years and the second coldest in 10 years, according to far more accurate NASA satellite data.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#3,582
#3,582
BartW said:
Luckily there are astronomers, physicists, geologists, chemists, climatologists, engineers, etc. that do know how to check.

Wth is that supposed to mean? Maybe it's not as bad as we think. Maybe it's worse. Uncertainty is a double-edged sword; that was my point in posting the climate sensitivity figure.

Either way, just *hoping* the entire scientific community is wrong is not prudent risk management. It's good to hear you aren't fundamentally opposed to action. Many posters in here are so frightened by the potential solutions that they choose to deny the problem altogether.
Click to expand...

To the first paragraph, indeed I am actually glad there are people outside this conversation that know what they are talking about, because no-one, including me, in this conversation know what they are talking about. :)

To the second, if there is a dramatic shift its not the end of the world, its just another start. Yeah the world we are comfortable with now will be gone, but 100 years after the big change it will seem normal. That's how life works, adapt and evolve or GTFO. so we have to move underground and crank up the AC (complete sarcasm here) big deal. People are just afraid to lose the comfy lives we have now.

I would love for us to go to clean or at least sustainable energy sources tomorrow, at least here in the US. But even if we change the developing nations aren't going to have that option and fossil fuels will continue to be used, even here it will maintain a use. instead of just running around chicken little style (even if the sky is more or less literally falling) or suggesting completely impossible/improbable ideas we need to work on stuff that can be implemented. Change is coming, accept it and work towards 'rolling' with the change instead of standing in the way to get run over.
 
#3,583
#3,583
So much facepalm @ cc, skins. My how these discussions go in circles...
LouderVol said:
To the first paragraph, indeed I am actually glad there are people outside this conversation that know what they are talking about, because no-one, including me, in this conversation know what they are talking about. :)
Click to expand...
I actually have a good bit of background in physics, astronomy, and geology so please don’t lump me in with the ignorami :)

…hence the reason this thread keeps me coming back. It’s the only thread in /politics where I actually have expertise to contribute.

LouderVol said:
To the second, if there is a dramatic shift its not the end of the world, its just another start. Yeah the world we are comfortable with now will be gone, but 100 years after the big change it will seem normal. That's how life works, adapt and evolve or GTFO. so we have to move underground and crank up the AC (complete sarcasm here) big deal. People are just afraid to lose the comfy lives we have now.
Click to expand...
Sure the human race would more than likely adapt and survive, but business as usual is not a peachy scenario. Yes we’ll have to abandon many coastal cities, even entire countries, creating millions of refugees. We’ll have to endure widespread drought and famine. We’ll still be spending boatload$ treating the symptoms, much more than we were “saving” (read: wasting) by delaying treatment of the underlying cause. Just ask the reinsurance industry…

LouderVol said:
I would love for us to go to clean or at least sustainable energy sources tomorrow, at least here in the US. But even if we change the developing nations aren't going to have that option and fossil fuels will continue to be used, even here it will maintain a use. instead of just running around chicken little style (even if the sky is more or less literally falling) or suggesting completely impossible/improbable ideas we need to work on stuff that can be implemented. Change is coming, accept it and work towards 'rolling' with the change instead of standing in the way to get run over.
Click to expand...

Agreed, up to the implication that only impossible/improbable ideas are being suggested. Carbon pricing is simple, logical, and already in effect all over the world. Emissions trading is a proven idea having already succeeded in tackling lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Your last statement especially is 100% dead on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#3,584
#3,584
BartW said:
So much facepalm @ cc, skins. My how these discussions go in circles...

I actually have a good bit of background in physics, astronomy, and geology so please don’t lump me in with the ignorami :)

…hence the reason this thread keeps me coming back. It’s the only thread in /politics where I actually have expertise to contribute.


Sure the human race would more than likely adapt and survive, but business as usual is not a peachy scenario. Yes we’ll have to abandon many coastal cities, even entire countries, creating millions of refugees. We’ll have to endure widespread drought and famine. We’ll still be spending boatload$ treating the symptoms, much more than we were “saving” (read: wasting) by delaying treatment of the underlying cause. Just ask the reinsurance industry…



Agreed, up to the implication that only impossible/improbable ideas are being suggested. Carbon pricing is simple, logical, and already in effect all over the world. Emissions trading is a proven idea having already succeeded in tackling lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Your last statement especially is 100% dead on.
Click to expand...


Money grabs solve nothing. Expertise is very subjective. I'm sure you would hate to think you devote so much time to a complete farce. Well you do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3,585
#3,585
govols/cc said:
Money grabs solve nothing. Expertise is very subjective. I'm sure you would hate to think you devote so much time to a complete farce. Well you do.
Click to expand...

Curse Ronald Reagan and his money grabs! Science is a farce! 9/11 was an inside job! The reptilians are in on it with the muslims! HAARP rabble rabble contrails rabble rabble vaccines!! All to make way for the NEW WORLD ORDER!!1!1!

771tbt.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,588
#3,588
BartW said:
So much facepalm @ cc, skins. My how these discussions go in circles...

I actually have a good bit of background in physics, astronomy, and geology so please don’t lump me in with the ignorami :)

…hence the reason this thread keeps me coming back. It’s the only thread in /politics where I actually have expertise to contribute.


Sure the human race would more than likely adapt and survive, but business as usual is not a peachy scenario. Yes we’ll have to abandon many coastal cities, even entire countries, creating millions of refugees. We’ll have to endure widespread drought and famine. We’ll still be spending boatload$ treating the symptoms, much more than we were “saving” (read: wasting) by delaying treatment of the underlying cause. Just ask the reinsurance industry…



Agreed, up to the implication that only impossible/improbable ideas are being suggested. Carbon pricing is simple, logical, and already in effect all over the world. Emissions trading is a proven idea having already succeeded in tackling lead pollution, ozone depletion, and acid rain during the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Your last statement especially is 100% dead on.
Click to expand...

now see if you proposed more solutions like that at the end I wouldn't have nearly the problem with you that I do. The doom and gloom message gets old and overblown, instead present a solution with the problem and people are much more willing to listen.
 
#3,589
#3,589
Unintended Anti-Nuclear Consequences Lurking in the EPA Clean Power Plan | ANS Nuclear Cafe

New EPA rule could/would actually increase carbon emissions.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Clean Power Plan has gained favor with some nuclear energy advocates. An extensive analysis of the proposal, however, reveals that current nuclear generating capacity would largely suffer under the new carbon rules. In fact, the results of an evaluation performed by my fellow graduate student Justin Knowles and myself show that 15 states are actually incentivized to shut down all of their nuclear units and replace them with natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) generation. In effect, this plan allows for increasing carbon emissions; a far cry from the stated goals of the Clean Power Plan.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
#3,590
#3,590
Was reading Think Like a Freak and the authors cited research that demonstrated:

(a) Americans generally trusted scientists and held them in high esteem
(b) With a few logic questions and a few questions about science literacy, researchers determined people with a better understanding of science were less likely to have significant fears about the implications of man-made climate change
(c) The more educated people are, the more likely they are to have a strong opinion, one way or another, about climate change

Interesting because the research refutes the idea that Americans have a general distaste for God-hating science. Interesting because it refutes the idea that a lack of scientific education is the root of the division over public policy on climate change.
 
#3,591
#3,591
n_huffhines said:
Was reading Think Like a Freak and the authors cited research that demonstrated:

(a) Americans generally trusted scientists and held them in high esteem
(b) With a few logic questions and a few questions about science literacy, researchers determined people with a better understanding of science were less likely to have significant fears about the implications of man-made climate change
(c) The more educated people are, the more likely they are to have a strong opinion, one way or another, about climate change

Interesting because the research refutes the idea that Americans have a general distaste for God-hating science. Interesting because it refutes the idea that a lack of scientific education is the root of the division over public policy on climate change.
Click to expand...

That's because when the liberal can't win in the arena of ideas he then resorts to "attacking the attacker."
 
#3,593
#3,593
It's interesting to watch politicians jumping on the human made climate change train and taking the seats of the scientists getting off that same train.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,597
#3,597
govols/cc said:
Thought this was entertaining

Climate change? China rebuts Obama
Climate change? China rebuts Obama | Fox News
Click to expand...

wow china is full of it. basically they are insisting that whatever any country puts into their own carbon cut backs ($$$) they also HAVE to match it into a global fund. I hope this gets laughed out. If we do this, and as much as i want to see changes be made, this will piss me the heck off.
 
#3,599
#3,599
LouderVol said:
wow china is full of it. basically they are insisting that whatever any country puts into their own carbon cut backs ($$$) they also HAVE to match it into a global fund. I hope this gets laughed out. If we do this, and as much as i want to see changes be made, this will piss me the heck off.
Click to expand...

It's further proof that it's simply a money grab & it's possible our inept government will throw money at them for nothing.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top