# Study of 100 year Antarctic sea ice proves no global warming - (carbon tax a scam).



## Pluto

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/w...e-change-in-last-100-years-new-analysis-shows

http://www.infowars.com/antarctic-expeditions-confirm-no-global-warming/


http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/11/24/antarctic-sea-ice-has-not-shrunk-in-100-years/


----------



## andrewf

infowars=alex jones=believes in aliens and bigfoot.

Sure, if you think they have any credibility (I mean, why do you even read it?).

Beyond that, I'm not sure you can say that logbooks from 100 years ago are as reliable as modern satellite data.


----------



## Davis

Alex Jones attended Austin Community College part-time but dropped out without getting a diploma. No-one seems to know what he actually studied while he was there. That's some credible source. 

On the other side, arguing "that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities" is NASA, which is full of really smart science people who have degrees and research credentials and stuff. 

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

And NASA backs up this conclusion with supporting statements from 18 scientific associations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the American Meteorological Society.

What Jones leaves out of his rant and what the National Post includes in its article is "that sea ice in the South Pole is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than in the Arctic, which experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century." 

Nowhere does the Post article suggest that the findings from the Antarctic weaken the argument that climate-warning is due to human activities. Because saying that wouldn't be credible. The Climate Depot article also does not draw that conclusion.

The only way Jones can find support for his wacko ideas is by picking and choosing information, and ignoring all the evidence brought forward by people who are way smarter than him.


----------



## lonewolf :)

The Martians are causing mars to warm also as their planet orbits the pulsating sun.


----------



## sags

Nobody studies and understands risk better than insurance companies.

They know from their own historical shipping records that ocean storms are getting progressively more intense and waves are getting higher.

They know from their own records that droughts and other "climate change" consequences are causing historic levels of damage.

If insurance companies are actively changing their risk profile and adjusting their business to compensate for the results of climate change, people should take note. Warren Buffet says that climate change damage will be good for insurance companies, because the obvious level of catastrophic damages will make it easier for insurance companies to convince people premiums need to be raised.

It may be soon that people who live in "high risk" areas won't be able to get insurance coverage at all. 

If they don't believe scientists, I would like to see Alex Jones and others debate climate change with insurance company CEOs.


----------



## steve41

All I can say is... "Thank God that Mr Trump is going to deep six this stupid Global Warming scam!"


----------



## sags

Before the election Trump said climate change was a hoax by the Chinese.

After the election Trump say he has an "open mind" and sees some "connectivity".

Recently, it is reported that Trump's daughter Ivanka wants to lead the Trump administration in the fight to address climate change.

The Trump's own a lot of valuable ocean side property. Maybe they received some briefings that changed their minds ?


----------



## andrewf

steve41 said:


> All I can say is... "Thank God that Mr Trump is going to deep six this stupid Global Warming scam!"


I suspect you're the one that's going to be disappointed in Trump.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> infowars=alex jones=believes in aliens and bigfoot.
> 
> Sure, if you think they have any credibility (I mean, why do you even read it?).
> 
> Beyond that, I'm not sure you can say that logbooks from 100 years ago are as reliable as modern satellite data.


The scientists read them because they are first hand accounts, and one should not reject information out of hand. Of course Scott's logs are credible. He wasn't working for Al Gore, or Jones and Mann, you know. 

The 30 years of satellite data show sea ice has increased in Antarctic.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Nobody studies and understands risk better than insurance companies.
> 
> They know from their own historical shipping records that ocean storms are getting progressively more intense and waves are getting higher.
> 
> They know from their own records that droughts and other "climate change" consequences are causing historic levels of damage.
> 
> If insurance companies are actively changing their risk profile and adjusting their business to compensate for the results of climate change, people should take note. Warren Buffet says that climate change damage will be good for insurance companies, because the obvious level of catastrophic damages will make it easier for insurance companies to convince people premiums need to be raised.
> 
> It may be soon that people who live in "high risk" areas won't be able to get insurance coverage at all.
> 
> If they don't believe scientists, I would like to see Alex Jones and others debate climate change with insurance company CEOs.


References please. Which insurance companies? Which high risk areas?


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> Alex Jones attended Austin Community College part-time but dropped out without getting a diploma. No-one seems to know what he actually studied while he was there. That's some credible source.
> 
> On the other side, arguing "that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities" is NASA, which is full of really smart science people who have degrees and research credentials and stuff.
> 
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
> 
> And NASA backs up this conclusion with supporting statements from 18 scientific associations including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Chemical Society, the American Geophysical Union, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the American Meteorological Society.
> 
> What Jones leaves out of his rant and what the National Post includes in its article is "that sea ice in the South Pole is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than in the Arctic, which experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century."
> 
> Nowhere does the Post article suggest that the findings from the Antarctic weaken the argument that climate-warning is due to human activities. Because saying that wouldn't be credible. The Climate Depot article also does not draw that conclusion.
> 
> The only way Jones can find support for his wacko ideas is by picking and choosing information, and ignoring all the evidence brought forward by people who are way smarter than him.


As far as I can tell Jones didn't make any claims in these articles. there is no proof he had anything to do with this. Satellite data show sea ice increasing over 30 years. And Antarctic isn't warming. The warming hysterics don't mention that due to picking and choosing only what backs their preconceived theory. Plus they know that science doesn't work by consensus. This consensus thing only influences amateurs.


----------



## Davis

No, the point is that while the Shackleton logbooks suggest that the Antarctic is not telling us anything about global warming, conditions in the Arctic and island nations and elsewhere are telling us that there is climate change, and scientists are overwhelmingly convinced that it is "extremely likely due to human activities".

Headlines like Infowars' "Antarctic Expedition Confirms No Global Warming" are therefore misleading.

Are you really calling NASA, the American Meteorological Association and 17 other settings organizations "warming hysterics"? 

Really? And after linking to an article for a crazy conspiracy theory website?

You should try to pick better sources for your information.

And we're not talking about consensus, we are talking about near unanimity based on a tidal wave of research standing up against opposition that is, for the most part, based on cranks like Jones, and oil/coal-industry funded "research".


----------



## Pluto

^

You seem hysterical. 
Are you denying 30 years of satellite data showing increasing ice in the south? The source isn't conspiracy theory website, the source is satellite data. 

This seems to be a case of you don't like the truth so you shoot the messenger. That method is not scientific. 

So you have a region where you make a case that ice is melting, for example, Greenland. Then you ignore all the areas where ice is not melting. Then you conclude there is man made global warming. That's not scientific.


----------



## Davis

Pluto said:


> Are you denying 30 years of satellite data showing increasing ice in the south? The source isn't conspiracy theory website, the source is satellite data.


No, I stated in the first line of my post above that the evidence from Antarctica does not show that ice is melting there. 



Pluto said:


> This seems to be a case of you don't like the truth so you shoot the messenger. That method is not scientific.


No, I am pointing out that Infowars' is not a credible source. The Daily Telegraph article (reprinted in the National Post and referred to by Infowars) noted that "that sea ice in the South Pole is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than in the Arctic, which experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century." Infowars excluded that information because it did not support their attempt to generalize this to challenge climate change, as their headline does. Which the Telegraph article did not do. >> Selective use of data by Infowars. 



Pluto said:


> So you have a region where you make a case that ice is melting, for example, Greenland. Then you ignore all the areas where ice is not melting. Then you conclude there is man made global warming. That's not scientific.


As noted, I acknowledge the evidence from Antarctica, and don't reject the evidence form the rest of the world that confirms climate change. 

I am not a scientist, so any conclusions I may have about climate change aren't worth anything. I am not going to use one data point and one study in one region to challenge the conclusions of scientists from NASA, etc.



Pluto said:


> ^You seem hysterical.


Yeah, you don't know me, so your name-calling is baseless. Go call NASA and the world scientific community "hysterical". If you think you're smarter than they are, you have an interesting world view, but it's not one that you should expect other people to share.


----------



## sags

Pluto said:


> References please. Which insurance companies? Which high risk areas?


All of the insurance companies are involved in climate change research and risk management.

There are many high risk areas........from drought stricken forest areas to low lying areas prone to flooding.

Property insurance company Intact fund their own climate research foundation.

Lots of information on their website on how climate change is affecting the insurance industry.

http://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> No, I stated in the first line of my post above that the evidence from Antarctica does not show that ice is melting there.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am pointing out that Infowars' is not a credible source. The Daily Telegraph article (reprinted in the National Post and referred to by Infowars) noted that "that sea ice in the South Pole is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than in the Arctic, which experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century." Infowars excluded that information because it did not support their attempt to generalize this to challenge climate change, as their headline does. Which the Telegraph article did not do. >> Selective use of data by Infowars.
> 
> 
> 
> As noted, I acknowledge the evidence from Antarctica, and don't reject the evidence form the rest of the world that confirms climate change.
> 
> I am not a scientist, so any conclusions I may have about climate change aren't worth anything. I am not going to use one data point and one study in one region to challenge the conclusions of scientists from NASA, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you don't know me, so your name-calling is baseless. Go call NASA and the world scientific community "hysterical". If you think you're smarter than they are, you have an interesting world view, but it's not one that you should expect other people to share.


The source isn't Infowars, the source is 30 years of satellite data. So saying infowars isn't credible is a moot point. 
Why is NASA the be all and end all? They want money to maintain their jobs and one way to save their jobs is to convince the world of pending doom unless they get a never ending flow of money. Hansen at NASA has been stoking the fires of hysteria for decades. 

so you are not a scientist? so what? That's how they convince you to be dependent on their views. People who are not scientists are capable of critical thinking, but they don't want you to think for yourself. Its like a church where the priests are going to tell you how to think and believe. 

The phrase "climate change" is a no lose phrase that came into usage after the globe stopped warming according to their own data. All of a sudden the "global warming" phrase became non operative, so they substituted "climate change". Now if there is cooling it is "climate change". if it warms there is "climate change", so it is a meaningless phrase. Then they get people to believe humans cause "climate change" even though the climate changed long before humans existed. meanwhile, they don't really know why climate changed before humans existed, so clearly they can't know the extent to which humans impact climate now.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> All of the insurance companies are involved in climate change research and risk management.
> 
> There are many high risk areas........from drought stricken forest areas to low lying areas prone to flooding.
> 
> Property insurance company Intact fund their own climate research foundation.
> 
> Lots of information on their website on how climate change is affecting the insurance industry.
> 
> http://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/


I don't see any proof of anything there. Looks like a smoke and mirrors site to me. they have an article about flooding in Alberta. So? There is no proof humans cause that flood.


----------



## Davis

Pluto said:


> The source isn't Infowars, the source is 30 years of satellite data. So saying infowars isn't credible is a moot point.


My point is that Infowars is reporting selectively from the Daily Telegraph and then using that to imply that climate change science is undermined by this new study, which the Telegraph didn't say and which the study doesn't do. The Telegraph notes that the Arctic region is showing the effects of climate change. This new work only challenges the use of Antarctica as an example of climate change. 



Pluto said:


> Why is NASA the be all and end all? They want money to maintain their jobs and one way to save their jobs is to convince the world of pending doom unless they get a never ending flow of money. Hansen at NASA has been stoking the fires of hysteria for decades.


NASA and 18 other scientific organizations. And 97% of scientific studies. Where is the evidence that the world scientists are colliding for their own interests? Who is paying off Stephen Hawking? As with other conspiracy torpedoes, there is no substance to the error (and hysterical) allegations. Kind of like Alex Jones saying that the 2012 murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School was "synthetic, completely fake, with actors", and offering no evidence. 



Pluto said:


> so you are not a scientist? so what? That's how they convince you to be dependent on their views. People who are not scientists are capable of critical thinking, but they don't want you to think for yourself. Its like a church where the priests are going to tell you how to think and believe.


So I'll try to explain to you the basic difference between scripture and religion. Religion says "we can't prove any of this to you, but you must believe it as a matter of faith". Science sets out its theories, documents its research, and presents evidence. If I cared to, I could read the scientific papers for myself and assess them. And I could read financial statements for companies instead of reading analysts' reports. But I don't have enough interest to do so, and I don't have the knowledge or exclusive with these matters to contradict the people who do. 

When I had to have surgery recently, the anaesthesiologist offered me an epidural or total sedation. I asked for his advice because they didn't offer anaesthesiology as an elective when I was studying economics. So I'm pretty sure that the anesthaesiologist knows more about it than I do. 



Pluto said:


> The phrase "climate change" is a no lose phrase that came into usage after the globe stopped warming according to their own data. All of a sudden the "global warming" phrase became non operative, so they substituted "climate change". Now if there is cooling it is "climate change". if it warms there is "climate change", so it is a meaningless phrase. Then they get people to believe humans cause "climate change" even though the climate changed long before humans existed. meanwhile, they don't really know why climate changed before humans existed, so clearly they can't know the extent to which humans impact climate now.


Climate change is a better term for it because the phenomenon goes beyond warming. The globe is clearly warming - 2016 is on track to beat the previous record for average temperature, which was set on 2015. The record for cold was set in 1911. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/
But we also know that the climate is becoming more valuable - extremely cold winters in some places, more frequent and more violent tropical storms. 

Of course the climate had always been been changing, but now it is changing more rapidly because of the dramatic increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases that humans are creating. In the past, climate change because an occasional massive volcano spewed hard into the atmosphere, for example. Now we are doing that every year, so yeah, it makes sense that we are changing the climate ourselves, as all those really, really smart scientists believe.


----------



## Jaberwock

Earth's climate is changing. It has been changing for billions of years and will continue changing long after humans have disappeared.

Some of the change taking place today is probably attributable to human factors.

Nothing that we can do will stop the change. The puny efforts of self serving politicians remind me of King Neptune sitting on his throne commanding the tides to turn.

Should we not be doing something to mitigate the effects of that change. For example, a reasonable first step in response to a long term forecast of sea level increases would be to stop all development on land that is close to sea level. Has any politician anywhere in the world suggested that?

Planning for the inevitable is always a better option than trying to stop the inevitable.


----------



## Davis

Yes, the climate has always been changing, and we are accelerating that change. 

If sea levels rise as expected, up to 50 million Bangladeshis are expected to flee the country. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/w...-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0

By 2100, the Ganges Delta, home to 160 million people, could be inundated. Bangladesh is responsible for 0.3% of emissions affecting the climate.

The issue is more than just not developing coastal regions. We can't prevent the part of the change that will happen anyway. But we have a choice. We can go on making things worse, as the science tells us we are, or we can try to stop making things worse. 

Or maybe we should just start making room in inland Canada for tens of millions of Bangladeshis and Indians and Brazil and living in low-lying areas.

And this isn't hysterics, it is science.


----------



## like_to_retire

Davis said:


> The globe is clearly warming - 2016 is on track to beat the previous record for average temperature, which was set on 2015. The record for cold was set in 1911.


I always have trouble with the _scale_ associated with man-made global warming. We haven't been around too long, and so our records don't extent too far. Comparing 2016 to 2015 seems a bit silly, but so does comparisons to 1911. It's 100 years. The ratio of 4.5 billion (earth's estimated age) compared to 100 years seems crazy. 

Since this is an investing site, I might compare that to a few seconds of volatility in a trading day against the entire history of the market, and I'm sure that wouldn't even represent.

Man's arrogance that we have such a profound effect after 4.5 billion years just doesn't ring true for me. But I could be wrong.

ltr


----------



## Davis

So the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong in saying that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities? 

Really? 

Are they being arrogant, or are they being scientists?

They believe that there is strong evidence that the sheer scale of man-made greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is what is causing climate-watching trends. 

Scientists base their conclusions on evidence and research, which seems to me to be a pretty good basis for public policy. But I'm not sure that it will be as we move into the post-fact world of Trump and Breitbart and Infowars.


----------



## like_to_retire

Davis said:


> So the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong in saying that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities?
> 
> Really?


Yeah, I certainly have no idea. I do know there's likely a bit of the "emperors clothes thing" going on, and I have read about how disagreeing can get a scientist in trouble, so they don't bother. I always try and look at this stuff as sensibly as I can, and to me a 1000 years of data is insignificant.




Davis said:


> Scientists base their conclusions on evidence and research, which seems to me to be a pretty good basis for public policy. But I'm not sure that it will be as we move into the post-fact world of Trump and Breitbart and Infowars.


I suppose. It's the flavor of the day to blame everything on Trump. I just try to keep an open mind. Again the _scale_ of the climate change has me wondering about its validity. You and many others are convinced. Me, not so much.

ltr


----------



## Davis

I get the impression that there are many people who will not be convinced no matter how much evidence because it means asking because them to give up something to reduce the damage bring done to future generations.

As far as the "emporer's clothing", the great scientists that we remember are the ones who stood up to orthodoxy and were right - Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin. Of course, history is full of unknowns who stood up to orthodoxy and were wrong. But the great men and women that scientists seek to emulate are the ones who didn't fall in line.


----------



## like_to_retire

Davis said:


> As far as the "emporer's clothing", the great scientists that we remember are the ones who stood up to orthodoxy and were right - Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin. Of course, history is full of unknowns who stood up to orthodoxy and were wrong. But the great men and women that scientists seek to emulate are the ones who didn't fall in line.


Indeed, after centuries of everyone believing the earth was flat, the great Greek philosopher Pythagoras established it was actually round, while the credit for proving it is usually given to Aristotle. Often people believe things for centuries before the truth comes out.

ltr


----------



## Davis

For centuries people believed that the earth could take anything we could throw at it and that humanity was too small to have an impact on the planet. Now we are seeing the results of that folly. Some people choose to ignore it because it is unpleasant. 

Believing that you know the truth and accusing the vast majority of scientists are just going along with what everybody else is saying seems to me to be the height of arrogance.


----------



## STech

For me personally, I really don't like the fact, but I can't escape it, that I have come to link global warming with the absolute scum Liberal Party of Ontario :mad-new:

I used to genuinely believe, and genuinely made every effort to do my part. Over a decade and a half of being lied to, and stolen from, I'm starting to turn more and more of a skeptic and wonder if I wasn't just naive to begin with. I highly doubt I'm alone in my feelings either.


----------



## Eder

It seems to me that we should be building a 4' tall sea wall around the NY area due to rising sea levels but instead we impose carbon taxes??? Something smells.


----------



## Davis

Maybe the US should build a wall around NYC instead of asking because the Mexico border. But New York won't be the only place affected by rotating seas. There are very entire countries that could be submerged. And agricultural areas that will be too hot for crops. And while weather events, which we are already seeing increasing. Carbon taxes will slow but that down to give us more time to prepare.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> My point is that Infowars is reporting selectively from the Daily Telegraph and then using that to imply that climate change science is undermined by this new study, which the Telegraph didn't say and which the study doesn't do. The Telegraph notes that the Arctic region is showing the effects of climate change. This new work only challenges the use of Antarctica as an example of climate change.
> 
> 
> 
> NASA and 18 other scientific organizations. And 97% of scientific studies. Where is the evidence that the world scientists are colliding for their own interests? Who is paying off Stephen Hawking? As with other conspiracy torpedoes, there is no substance to the error (and hysterical) allegations. Kind of like Alex Jones saying that the 2012 murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School was "synthetic, completely fake, with actors", and offering no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> So I'll try to explain to you the basic difference between scripture and religion. Religion says "we can't prove any of this to you, but you must believe it as a matter of faith". Science sets out its theories, documents its research, and presents evidence. If I cared to, I could read the scientific papers for myself and assess them. And I could read financial statements for companies instead of reading analysts' reports. But I don't have enough interest to do so, and I don't have the knowledge or exclusive with these matters to contradict the people who do.
> 
> When I had to have surgery recently, the anaesthesiologist offered me an epidural or total sedation. I asked for his advice because they didn't offer anaesthesiology as an elective when I was studying economics. So I'm pretty sure that the anesthaesiologist knows more about it than I do.
> 
> 
> 
> Climate change is a better term for it because the phenomenon goes beyond warming. The globe is clearly warming - 2016 is on track to beat the previous record for average temperature, which was set on 2015. The record for cold was set in 1911. https://www.scientificamerican.com/...ance-2016-will-be-the-hottest-year-on-record/
> But we also know that the climate is becoming more valuable - extremely cold winters in some places, more frequent and more violent tropical storms.
> 
> Of course the climate had always been been changing, but now it is changing more rapidly because of the dramatic increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases that humans are creating. In the past, climate change because an occasional massive volcano spewed hard into the atmosphere, for example. Now we are doing that every year, so yeah, it makes sense that we are changing the climate ourselves, as all those really, really smart scientists believe.


1. Basically what you are saying is you are not interested in critical thinking, you have faith in what they are saying, and I should just believe you too, based on your faith in them. that's not very convincing. 

2. Global warming adherents use selective reporting too. for example, they continually refer to what they believe is melting land based ice on Greenland to support their case. But they fail to report on the land based ice in Antarctic that isn't melting, and as an area that isn't warming. The only time I am aware of them speaking about it is when they are asked about the south by skeptics. And their replies are problematic. When you say you believe them, that is a declaration of faith in a problematic theory. 

4. The scientific American article refers to a preindustrial average temp. How far back does "preindustrial" go? And when they pick a preindustrial date, why that date? How do they know what the preindustrial age temp was with certainty? What is the margin of error in such conclusions? What I read is our current temps are about the same as they were around 1000 AD, where as the industrial age commenced around 1850. Me thinks Scientific American ins engaged in Sophistry. 

5. Economics: Gailbraith used to claim that economists couldn't predict the economy, and the only reason they engaged in predictions was because they were paid to. I think climate scientists are in the same boat as economists.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> Yes, the climate has always been changing, and we are accelerating that change.
> 
> If sea levels rise as expected, up to 50 million Bangladeshis are expected to flee the country. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/29/w...-the-consequences-of-climate-change.html?_r=0
> 
> By 2100, the Ganges Delta, home to 160 million people, could be inundated. Bangladesh is responsible for 0.3% of emissions affecting the climate.
> 
> The issue is more than just not developing coastal regions. We can't prevent the part of the change that will happen anyway. But we have a choice. We can go on making things worse, as the science tells us we are, or we can try to stop making things worse.
> 
> Or maybe we should just start making room in inland Canada for tens of millions of Bangladeshis and Indians and Brazil and living in low-lying areas.
> 
> And this isn't hysterics, it is science.


There have been some areas where sea level rise was attributed to global warming, but later it turned out the land was sinking. I don't know if that applies to Bangladesh. There has been way too much shenanigans and manipulation by global warming theorists for me to take what they say at face value. I prefer to hear what the critics say as well before believing them.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> So the vast majority of the world's scientists are wrong in saying that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities?
> 
> Really?
> 
> Are they being arrogant, or are they being scientists?
> 
> They believe that there is strong evidence that the sheer scale of man-made greenhouse gas emissions in the last century is what is causing climate-watching trends.
> 
> Scientists base their conclusions on evidence and research, which seems to me to be a pretty good basis for public policy. But I'm not sure that it will be as we move into the post-fact world of Trump and Breitbart and Infowars.


1. I'm not convinced the vast majority of scientists think that climate change is due to human activity. I have read it is more like 50/50. 
2. Reportedly, there was a little preindustrial ice age that bottomed out about 1650 followed by a steep 200 year rise in temperatures. I have not encountered any explanation for that preindustrial rise in temperature. They seem to ignore it as it doesn't fit their theory, and they actually have no way to distinguish natural warming from man made warming. If the globe is warming now, it could be the same natural factors causing it as that 200 year preindustrial temp rise. 
3. public policy: many countries are building coal fired plants, so obviously that policy is not based on climate change science. Apparently India expects to triple its dependence on coal. 
4. The globe is reportedly as warm now as it was in 1000 AD. In 1000 AD Greenland was warm enough for the Vikings to settle there, so maybe it was even warmer at that time. so I am not convinced that any industrial age warming is due solely to human activity.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> On the other side, arguing "that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities" is NASA, which is full of really smart science people who have degrees and research credentials and stuff.


The 97% lie has been debunked several times. Look it up.

NASA has "adjusted" past temperatures lower to make the present look warmer:

"Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 –*which NASA has publicly available – data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:

From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: *Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950*. […] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that*NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears –*although it never existed.”

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nasa+temperature+adjustments


----------



## Davis

I looked it up. There are numerous studies that support the claim of consensus. And there are reasonable response to claims of debunking. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...treet-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus

I love this bit of nonsense from Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/ : "The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.

Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”. 

But you can read that study, which is linked from the Breitbart article, and see that on question 1, only 0.6% of the respondents believe that human activity has no impact on global warming or a positive one. About 20% did not respond. 6.5% believe that it accounts for up to 25% of global warming, and the rest believe it has a larger impact. 

So these respondents may not agree with the IPCC's statement, but it is incorrect to suggest that they don't agree that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming.


----------



## Nelley

Davis said:


> I looked it up. There are numerous studies that support the claim of consensus. And there are reasonable response to claims of debunking. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...treet-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus
> 
> I love this bit of nonsense from Breitbart http://www.breitbart.com/london/201...climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/ : "The study, by the PBL Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency, a government body, invited 6550 scientists working in climate related fields, including climate physics, climate impact, and mitigation, to take part in a survey on their views of climate science.
> 
> Of the 1868 who responded, just 43 percent agreed with the IPCC that “It is extremely likely {95%+ certainty} that more than half of [global warming] from 1951 to 2010 was caused by [human activity]”.
> 
> But you can read that study, which is linked from the Breitbart article, and see that on question 1, only 0.6% of the respondents believe that human activity has no impact on global warming or a positive one. About 20% did not respond. 6.5% believe that it accounts for up to 25% of global warming, and the rest believe it has a larger impact.
> 
> So these respondents may not agree with the IPCC's statement, but it is incorrect to suggest that they don't agree that human activity is a significant contributor to global warming.


Reality is not a popularity contest-neither is scientific advancement. Surprisingly difficult concept for many.


----------



## Davis

Pluto said:


> 1. Basically what you are saying is you are not interested in critical thinking, you have faith in what they are saying, and I should just believe you too, based on your faith in them. that's not very convincing.


As always, it is pointless for you to reinterpret what I, or anyone else, am saying, because you will always get it wrong. On issues outside of my expertise, I use critical thinking to evaluate which experts to believe. I don't decide that I understand science better than scientists do and call that "critical thinking".



Pluto said:


> 2. Global warming adherents use selective reporting too. for example, they continually refer to what they believe is melting land based ice on Greenland to support their case. But they fail to report on the land based ice in Antarctic that isn't melting, and as an area that isn't warming. The only time I am aware of them speaking about it is when they are asked about the south by skeptics. And their replies are problematic. When you say you believe them, that is a declaration of faith in a problematic theory.


The Shackleton log was just reported on. It will be interesting to see how other scientists respond. Until now, video footage of huge chunks of Antarctic ice shelves breaking off have appeared to have been solid evidence that something is going on. Those events will have to be reevaluated now.



Pluto said:


> 4. The scientific American article refers to a preindustrial average temp. How far back does "preindustrial" go? And when they pick a preindustrial date, why that date? How do they know what the preindustrial age temp was with certainty? What is the margin of error in such conclusions? What I read is our current temps are about the same as they were around 1000 AD, where as the industrial age commenced around 1850. Me thinks Scientific American ins engaged in Sophistry.


I can't answer for Scientific American, but it is probably the most widely read popular science magazine. What is your source? I know you read infowars, but it publishes a lot of lies. The point is that since we have started pumping epic quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the expected result, that temperatures would rise, they have. https://globalclimate.ucr.edu/index.html



Pluto said:


> 5. Economics: Gailbraith used to claim that economists couldn't predict the economy, and the only reason they engaged in predictions was because they were paid to. I think climate scientists are in the same boat as economists.


No-one makes perfect predictions, and we all know about the failures of economic predications, but we don't hear about the routine, everyday predictions that are right because they don't make for a very interesting story. Climate scientists have been predicting for a long time that temperatures would rise. Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist, was the first to claim in 1896 that fossil fuel combustion may eventually result in enhanced global warming. And temperatures have been rising. So far, he is right.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> I looked it up. There are numerous studies that support the claim of consensus. And there are reasonable response to claims of debunking. https://www.theguardian.com/environ...treet-journal-denies-global-warming-consensus


That article quotes a bunch of alarmists and special interest groups while discrediting anyone who disagrees with their position. It's meaningless.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> That article quotes a bunch of alarmists and special interest groups while discrediting anyone who disagrees with their position. It's meaningless.


You're an alarmist and a special interest group who discredits anyone who disagrees with your position. 

See how schoolyard name-calling doesn't make a convincing argument?


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> You're an alarmist and a special interest group who discredits anyone who disagrees with your position.
> 
> See how schoolyard name-calling doesn't make a convincing argument?


You're right. The only convincing argument would be actual proof. Do you have any? Remember...computer models and "consensus" isn't proof.

I want actual proof. Without that, I will simply dismiss all the alarmist claims.


----------



## Davis

I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't prove it to you. If you're not a scientist, then like me, you probably wouldn't understand the explanation without several years of study. So it's easy to clap your hands over your ears, ignore all of the scientific organizations telling you that it is happening, and let the next generations pay the price. It must feel really good to believe that you know better that Stephen Hawking, NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Research Council, the Royal Society of the UK, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the European Science Foundation, the American Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Organization -- really, I could go on. To be fair, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is divided on the issue, so they don't take a stand, even though their livelihoods depend on drilling for oil.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> I'm not a scientist, so I couldn't prove it to you. If you're not a scientist, then like me, you probably wouldn't understand the explanation without several years of study. So it's easy to clap your hands over your ears, ignore all of the scientific organizations telling you that it is happening, and let the next generations pay the price. It must feel really good to believe that you know better that Stephen Hawking, NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Research Council, the Royal Society of the UK, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the European Science Foundation, the American Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Organization -- really, I could go on. To be fair, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists is divided on the issue, so they don't take a stand, even though their livelihoods depend on drilling for oil.


No one in any of those groups you mentioned predicted the pause. No one in any of those groups can explain the pause. No computer model can recreate the pause. No one can explain why CO2 used to be 10x today's level during ice ages in the past. 

Too many people have been viciously attacked for publicly having an opinion contrary to the party line, and when people are attacked for disagreeing or lose their funding for expressing uncertainty, then that tells you that this is political and not scientific. We don't know how many people in those groups simply remain silent because they know what happens when someone speaks up.


----------



## Davis

Ooh yes, it's all a big conspiracy. That's what people say when they become can't come up with evidence to support their pet theories. That's how the 9/11 "Truth" Movement operates. Ask a bunch of questions, ignore the answers, and accuse everyone else of bring in on the conspiracy. Science had always been advanced by people who challenge orthodoxy and prove it wrong in the face of opposition. And when they do, scientists change their minds. This is our history.. No scientists now say the earth is flat or that the world was created 6000 years ago. And now the evidence on anthropogenic climate change is do strong, that only a few scientists reject it.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> Ooh yes, it's all a big conspiracy. That's what people say when they become can't come up with evidence to support their pet theories. That's how the 9/11 "Truth" Movement operates. Ask a bunch of questions, ignore the answers, and accuse everyone else of bring in on the conspiracy. Science had always been advanced by people who challenge orthodoxy and prove it wrong in the face of opposition. And when they do, scientists change their minds. This is our history.. No scientists now say the earth is flat or that the world was created 6000 years ago. And now the evidence on anthropogenic climate change is do strong, that only a few scientists reject it.


In 2014, there were 1350 peer reviewed articles skeptical of dangerous manmade warming. The list has grown since:

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

Another source showing a majority of scientist are skeptical:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...ptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#783cf54d171b


----------



## Davis

The Forbes article, which appeared in a business magazine, is written by James Taylor, an American lawyer who used to be president of the Heartland Institute. The HI, after working with tobacco company Philip Morris to deny the health effects of cigarette smoke, now works as a climate change denial group. It has received significant funding from ExxonMobile and the Charles G Koch Foundation (Koch owns oil, gas and chemical companies) in the past but now refuses to reveal its funding sources. Its list of scientists includes scientists who do not call themselves climate change skeptics. 

Popular Technology seems to be a pretty minor website that takes its name from Popular Mechanics magazine to gain credibility, but doesn't identify its ownership.

I like getting my science information from credible science sources, not the fringe, and not from oil company-funded fronts because, you know, oil companies have a vested interest in protecting their revenues.


----------



## bass player

The article listed several hundred peer reviewed articles...James Taylor didn't write the articles. But, as expected, you just dismissed evidence because it doesn't conform to the mantra.

I'm not going to get into a funding discussion...the money on the left is far more tainted than the right, and virtually ALL of the government funding goes to warmists.


----------



## none

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> The article listed several hundred peer reviewed articles...James Taylor didn't write the articles. But, as expected, you just dismissed evidence because it doesn't conform to the mantra.
> 
> I'm not going to get into a funding discussion...the money on the left is far more tainted than the right, and virtually ALL of the government funding goes to warmists.


And you've dismissed the thousands of articles cited in other studies as alarmist and serving special interest groups. There is no special interest more tainted than the oil industry. They do not have our best interest at heart.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> And you've dismissed the thousands of articles cited in other studies as alarmist and serving special interest groups. There is no special interest more tainted than the oil industry. They do not have our best interest at heart.


The most tainted special interest groups are the federal government who plan to "solve" this non-existent problem by raising taxes, and all the different organizations who collect billions a year in climate related grants.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> The Forbes article, which appeared in a business magazine, is written by James Taylor, an American lawyer who used to be president of the Heartland Institute. The HI, after working with tobacco company Philip Morris to deny the health effects of cigarette smoke, now works as a climate change denial group. It has received significant funding from ExxonMobile and the Charles G Koch Foundation (Koch owns oil, gas and chemical companies) in the past but now refuses to reveal its funding sources. Its list of scientists includes scientists who do not call themselves climate change skeptics.
> 
> Popular Technology seems to be a pretty minor website that takes its name from Popular Mechanics magazine to gain credibility, but doesn't identify its ownership.
> 
> I like getting my science information from credible science sources, not the fringe, and not from oil company-funded fronts because, you know, oil companies have a vested interest in protecting their revenues.


This is typical shoot the messenger critique. Sources of money does not prove or disprove a scientific theory. You just assume that the sources you choose are credible but you don't seem to consider that your assumption could be mistaken. Oil companies have made it clear that they are not oil companies, they are in the energy business and they don't care where the energy comes from. for example, Boone Pickens is an oil man from way back, but he also owns wind farms in Texas. they aren't against non oil sources of energy as their critics assume. 

I dismiss shoot the messenger critiques, and source of money critiques. They are not scientific. What if you disapproved of Newton's source of funding; would that make the law of gravity wrong? Einstein wouldn't dream of critiquing Newton on the basis of source of money because such a critique isn't science. When you sue such critiques, it makes you look incredible. 

Some scientists like to point out that the Medieval Warm period is about as warm or warmer than today. 
Critique: Oh they are paid by big oil. 
Response: Are they? prove it. But even if they are, so what? That doesn't make them wrong. Its just a smoke and mirrors critique that diverts attention away from the actual scientific issues.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> And you've dismissed the thousands of articles cited in other studies as alarmist and serving special interest groups. There is no special interest more tainted than the oil industry. They do not have our best interest at heart.


You are just claiming the oil industry is tainted, but you have no proof. For example, we have exciting developments out of Tesla. Musk is developing amazing electric cars, and recently he is getting into advancing roof top solar panels and better storage batteries. Is big oil ganging up on him, and undermining him? Not that I or anyone else can tell. The Oil man, Boone Pickens owns wind farms. Is big oil ganging up on him? Its all in your imagination. 

You are better off setting aside the imaginative conspiracies, and sticking to scientific issues. some of the scietific issues you have sidestepped are,

1. what explains the pause in warming that commenced around 1998?
2. What caused the warming since the last ice age about 10,000 yes ago? 
3. What caused the cooling from the middle ages to 1650?
4. What caused the preindustrial warming from 1650 to 1850? 
5. If the temps are so hot now, why is it about the same temp as approximately 1000 AD when the Vikings settled in Greenland?

Despite claims that "the science is settled", and alleged "consensus" such questions remain unanswered.


----------



## Pluto

none said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M


So what? 
She uses the phrase "hottest on record" but does not define "record". When does her record start, and why would she pick that start date? She doesn't say. What methods were used to establish that record? What is the margin of error for such methods? Usually the warmest pick either 1850, the start of the industrial age, or 1881, the start of thermometer records. And the underlying assumption is that temperatures prior to those dates are irrelevant. I don't buy that assumption. They seem to want to side step any explanation about how ice ages end. 

She claims the glob is warming. So what? And ice age ended some 1000 years ago and the globe warmed. I could be still in a warming trend. so what? 

If Breitbart cherry picked as she claimed, shame on them. but she needs to define her use of the word "record" - when does her record start, and why did she pick that particular date? I think she may be avoided that issue to avoid being accused of cherry picking, because if the record starts at about 1000 AD, there is no proof of warming. But if she picked 1650 as a start date, the "record" shows a lot of warming, most of which is preindustrial warming. But if she picks 1881, the start of thermometer records, they were mostly land based near cities, and not oceans, yet she states that ocean temps are important, and by including Ocean temps it proves its the hottest on record. but what were the ocean temps are her start date? She doesn't say, so nothing of import can really be concluded from her presentation. 

It isn't as simple as she portrays. So why does she try to make it so simple. Maybe due to her funding?


----------



## Spudd

Davis, I admire your tenacity but I think it's pointless to try and argue with Pluto. I pointed out that an article he sourced actually had the opposite conclusion to what he was taking away from it, and his response was to call it a conspiracy because the scientist who wrote that article didn't want to get blackballed by the scientific community.


----------



## bass player

none said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhdymoRTz6M


More fake news...


----------



## Davis

Spudd said:


> Davis, I admire your tenacity but I think it's pointless to try and argue with Pluto. I pointed out that an article he sourced actually had the opposite conclusion to what he was taking away from it, and his response was to call it a conspiracy because the scientist who wrote that article didn't want to get blackballed by the scientific community.


Good point. I could look up studies that answer his/her questions, but they'd be dismissed as "hysterical" or "scientists afraid of being blackballed". And then he/she accuses me of shooting the messenger. I wonder which category Stephen Hawking falls into in Pluto's mass-dismissal of scientists and scientific organizations. Hawking was one of 375 scientists who signed a letter this year that said, in part, “During the Presidential primary campaign, claims were made that the Earth is not warming, or that warming is due to purely natural causes outside of human control. Such claims are inconsistent with reality.”
http://time.com/4502561/donald-trump-stephen-hawking-climate-change/
And aren't we fortunate to have someone in our little group who thinks of themselves as being better able than Stephen Hawking to critically analyse all of the available scientific research and draw a conclusion.


----------



## like_to_retire

Albert Einstein, unquestionably one of the greatest minds in history, wasn't immune to error either..

ltr


----------



## My Own Advisor

steve41 said:


> All I can say is... "Thank God that Mr Trump is going to deep six this stupid Global Warming scam!"


LOL


----------



## Davis

like_to_retire said:


> Albert Einstein, unquestionably one of the greatest minds in history, wasn't immune to error either..
> 
> ltr


So Stephen Hawking is wrong about the biggest issue the planet faces, and so are NASA, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the United States National Research Council, the Royal Society of the UK, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts, the European Science Foundation, the American Meteorological Society, the World Meteorological Organization, and on and on. 

You really have to want to deny climate change to believe that they are all wrong.


----------



## Davis

I started googling Pluto's list of questions, and started finding article from reputable scientific organizations that discuss these issues. If Pluto is unfamiliar with Google, I am sure that he/she can find someone to make explain how b to use it. But I suspect that Pluto is doing what climate change deniers and 9/11 deniers and smoking-causes-cancer deniers do: just keep throwing out questions and ignore the answers.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Have you ever wondered how Stephen Hawking could have been diagnosed with ALS in 1963 and given 2 years to live, and still be alive in 2016, 53 years later, aged 74?

Miles Mathis thinks he has found the answer.

http://milesmathis.com/hawk3.pdf


----------



## Poptech

Davis said:


> Popular Technology seems to be a pretty minor website that takes its name from Popular Mechanics magazine to gain credibility, but doesn't identify its ownership.
> 
> I like getting my science information from credible science sources, not the fringe, and not from oil company-funded fronts because, you know, oil companies have a vested interest in protecting their revenues.


This misinformation is addressed in the "Rebuttals to Criticism" section of the list.


> Criticism: Popular Technology.net was named to be misleading.
> 
> Rebuttal: This is complete nonsense, using this argument would mean magazines like Popular Photography (est. 1937 by Ziff-Davis publishing) were named to be misleading which is obviously ridiculous. The website was named out of the editor's love of technology and as an homage to some of his long-time favorite magazines - Popular Science and Popular Mechanics.


Popular Technology.net is an impartial, not-for-profit website that covers popular trends and technology. This site receives no funding of any kind, has no affiliations and is completely independent.

The list has been cited over 100 times, including in the scholarly literature.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> I started googling Pluto's list of questions, and started finding article from reputable scientific organizations that discuss these issues. If Pluto is unfamiliar with Google, I am sure that he/she can find someone to make explain how b to use it. But I suspect that Pluto is doing what climate change deniers and 9/11 deniers and smoking-causes-cancer deniers do: just keep throwing out questions and ignore the answers.


You just thought of these questions now? Previously you were portraying yourself as having all the answers already. this is a long thread and yet there is no answer about why Antarctic isn't warming. 

By the way, in you web searches did you find this guy? -
http://www.drroyspencer.com


----------



## Davis

Nope, I've never portrayed myself as having answers. I have repeatedly stated that I am not a scientist. The answer is in the National Post/Daily Telegraph article you linked to: "The findings show that the climate of Antarctica had fluctuated throughout the 20th century and that sea ice in the South Pole is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than in the Arctic, which experienced a dramatic decline during the 20th century." 

It is basically because ocean currents carry the heat away from the Antarctic. I found this out quickly by Google. More here: http://phys.org/news/2014-08-ocean-circulation-arctic-affected-global.html


----------



## Davis

So Spencer has his theories, and he clearly has credentials, but he doesn't seem to have been successful in convincing the broader scientific community of them. That is how science works: everything brings forward their theories and evidence, and they get evaluated, and a consensus is developed. That consensus can be challenged, of course, but when their research fails to convince their peers, I guess they have to resort to wild claims about the majority bring browbeaten or being paid off or whatever. Lots of scientists spend their careers toiling away trying to prove their failed theories.


----------



## humble_pie

Davis i've been missing brad on here.

the great thing about brad is that he was expertly well versed on all sides of the climate change issue. In real life, it was a key issue in his work, he was the first to tell us.

the wonderful thing about brad's posts was that he'd describe several sides to each topic. He'd give full coverage to the nay-sayers, then to the yes-sayers, then he'd explain why, in the end, he'd chosen to be on one side or the other. Usually brad would be with the yes-sayers.

brad contributed so well to the forum that things had reached the point where (i'm embarassed to say) i didn't need to bother to keep myself informed. Whatever mattered on climate change, i knew brad would always have a full & fair wrapup of Why Yes & also Why No.

so i'm happy to see Davis back & posting on climate change issues. It means we can have some real discussion once again.

(aside to Pluto) i'm also always happy to see you hold up the Nay side. I'm always glad to see your arguments. As brad used to say, we still cannot be sure-for-sure, although brad himself would usually settle on the Yes side because the alternative would be too disastrous to risk experiencing.

but Pluto do you mind if i mention something? you'd be a much more successful debater if you could manage to stop labelling those who disagree with you as "hysterical," etc. Certainly Davis is the last thing from hysterical.

.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> So Spencer has his theories, and he clearly has credentials, but he doesn't seem to have been successful in convincing the broader scientific community of them. That is how science works: everything brings forward their theories and evidence, and they get evaluated, and a consensus is developed. That consensus can be challenged, of course, but when their research fails to convince their peers, I guess they have to resort to wild claims about the majority bring browbeaten or being paid off or whatever. Lots of scientists spend their careers toiling away trying to prove their failed theories.


In this post you are talking about how science works. In your previous post you state you are not a scientist. 

You switch between these two positions whenever it is convenient for you. 

To me Spencer is a conservative credible scientist who actually wants to know the truth. Politically I haven't noticed him taking sides. You mention consensus - otherwise it might be known as the herd instinct - people feel safer in groups, even if the group perspective is full of holes. I admire a scientist who can stick up for what is right in the face of commence opposition. 

And on that theme - of how science works - I saw a documentary on theories of how some specific canyons formed in the US. The original theory was they formed over millions of years of erosion. Papers were published and it became accepted dogma. Then another scientist came around and looked at the situation and came up with an alternate theory. The new theory was that after the last big ice age ended, melting ice form a huge lake in the middle of the continent. the lake was hemmed in by large ice dam. Eventually the ice dam broke releasing millions of gallons of water instantly and thereby the canyons were formed within a few months. Well well. the guy who came up with the first theory was not amused. Apparently he had his ego involved in his theory. and his friends backed him up. His theory prevailed until he died. How does science work? One aspect of it is a rigid adherence to it by people who have their reputation invested in it. Once they retire or die, the rigid defense of it melts away. 

South pole ocean currents prevent warming at south pole: its a theory and like all theories is not provable. It may be true, it may not be.


----------



## bass player

It's quite telling that supposed warming is the most important issue facing mankind (according to some), yet anyone who tries to discuss it is immediately shut down by the very people who say that the planet is in danger.

Anyone who asks why there have been several adjustments to historic temperature records is shut down.

Anyone who states that there are many factors, some of which are barely understood that affect weather, and perhaps those factors need to be better understood before taking drastic action are shut down.

Anyone who dares to question the findings of people who rely on billions in government funding are also shut down.

The more that people shout down and insult dissenters, the more it proves how weak their argument is. There is no other scientific field in the world that tries to stifle a discussion.


----------



## Davis

Pluto said:


> In this post you are talking about how science works. In your previous post you state you are not a scientist.


Let me clarify: this is how I understand that scientists do things, but I'm not need a scientist and i don't pretend to have all the answers, or to be able to critique the work of scientists.



Pluto said:


> To me Spencer is a conservative credible scientist who actually wants to know the truth.... You mention consensus - otherwise it might be known as the herd instinct - people feel safer in groups, even if the group perspective is full of holes. I admire a scientist who can stick up for what is right in the face of commence opposition.


I think all scientists want to know the truth. Dismissing any scientist who doesn't agree with your point of view as "following the herd and feeling safer in groups" tells me that your critical thinking abilities are taking a back seat to finding support for what you want to believe.



Pluto said:


> I saw a documentary on theories of how some specific canyons formed in the US....


Fair enough, but let's not compare a question where a small number of scientists are working to the biggest scientific question facing the human race in the 21st century. The consensus had resulted from thousands of studies by thousands and thousands of scientists who are trying to find the truth. Individual scientists will make mistakes and want to defend their reputations, and maybe Dr Spencer falls into that category for all we know. But to say that the scientific community as a whole is making that collective error to protect their reputations is just speculation and conspiracy theory stuff.



Pluto said:


> South pole ocean currents prevent warming at south pole: its a theory and like all theories is not provable. It may be true, it may not be.


Ditto for the claim that the claim that humans putting more CO2 into the Earth's atmosphere then there has ever been will not affect the climate. If it's true, we're fine. If it isn't, we're screwing future generations royally.


----------



## Davis

bass player said:


> It's quite telling that supposed warming is the most important issue facing mankind (according to some), yet anyone who tries to discuss it is immediately shut down by the very people who say that the planet is in danger.


And anyone who tries to present the evidence in n support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change is dismissed as just "going along with the herd", "afraid for their jobs", "only out to get government funding". 

Or worse, they're dead and have been replaced by imposters. 

I mean, really.


----------



## Pluto

humble_pie said:


> Davis i've been missing brad on here.
> 
> the great thing about brad is that he was expertly well versed on all sides of the climate change issue. In real life, it was a key issue in his work, he was the first to tell us.
> 
> the wonderful thing about brad's posts was that he'd describe several sides to each topic. He'd give full coverage to the nay-sayers, then to the yes-sayers, then he'd explain why, in the end, he'd chosen to be on one side or the other. Usually brad would be with the yes-sayers.
> 
> brad contributed so well to the forum that things had reached the point where (i'm embarassed to say) i didn't need to bother to keep myself informed. Whatever mattered on climate change, i knew brad would always have a full & fair wrapup of Why Yes & also Why No.
> 
> so i'm happy to see Davis back & posting on climate change issues. It means we can have some real discussion once again.
> 
> (aside to Pluto) i'm also always happy to see you hold up the Nay side. I'm always glad to see your arguments. As brad used to say, we still cannot be sure-for-sure, although brad himself would usually settle on the Yes side because the alternative would be too disastrous to risk experiencing.
> 
> but Pluto do you mind if i mention something? you'd be a much more successful debater if you could manage to stop labelling those who disagree with you as "hysterical," etc. Certainly Davis is the last thing from hysterical.
> 
> .


No, I don't mind you mentioning something. Frankness is a virtue. 
I didn't see this as a debate. I thought it was an exchange of information. 
At least he didn't openly smear Spencer as often happens to those who do not automatically accept contemporary dogma. 

To me, both sides are worth study. But I have no recollection or evidence of Brad or Davis making an effort to understand both sides.


----------



## bass player

Davis said:


> And anyone who tries to present the evidence in n support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change is dismissed as just "going along with the herd", "afraid for their jobs", "only out to get government funding".
> 
> Or worse, they're dead and have been replaced by imposters.
> 
> I mean, really.


What evidence? There is none. There never has been.

The government only funds one side of the issue, and the people who get that funding have an opinion that matches that of their employer. Of course some people may want to ask questions.


----------



## Pluto

Davis said:


> And anyone who tries to present the evidence in n support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change is dismissed as just "going along with the herd", "afraid for their jobs", "only out to get government funding".
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, really.


You are quite dismissive of this, but a scientist I saw in a documentary explained it well. He explained that if he was applying for a research grant to study the mating habits of squirrels, his chances would be modest in the current global warming theory climate. But if he applied for a grant to study the effects of global warming on the mating habits of squirrels he chances of getting the money would be greatly enhanced. his point is that researchers tie their applications into global warming even if they have no interest in global warming because they know that helps them get the money. 

I'm not convinced that warming is a valid top priority, but for the time being it is a safe and lucrative camp to be in.


----------



## none

*Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity'*

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ion-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html


----------



## bass player

none said:


> *Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity'*
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ion-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html


Gravity is known, proven, and measurable to the millionth of a gram. Climate has dozens of variables, many of which are not understood completely.

But, other than that, they are exactly the same!!! :very_drunk:


----------



## Davis

Humble pie, merci pour les mots gentils. Je ne peux pas t'envoyer une message prive'e. En tout cas, je n'ai pas trouve' cette discussion utile. It is largely a case of "my studies are better than your studies", and I have used that argument too because I lacking the science education to be able to analyse v the evidence on both sides myself. 

I have not read the thousands of studies mysrlf, and I am quite sure that bass player hasn't either, but he/she doesn't hesitate to say definitively "there is no evidence". Pluto, meanwhile, divides scientists into two categories and disputes the professional credibility of those who disagree with his conclusion, and of all the scientific organizations that accept climate change.

Take for example his question about Antarctica. He says there is no answer to his question, but when I provide the prevailing theory, he dismisses it as "just a theory". Of course it is, as evolution and the Big Bang are just theories, but they are theories that most scientists agree with. And I don't think any one here understand the science of this as well as scientists do. 

What it starts, and where it should have ended, was with the false claim in the headline that "Study of 100 year Antarctic sea ice proves no global warming". This claim came from Infowars, which has also published lies about Hillary Clinton being involved in a Satanic child-death cult. The claim is not supported by the Daily Telegraph article that Infowars distorted. 

The debate is going around in circles without generating any illumination.

I should be spending time on more productive endeavours, like improving my "Michael Chong French". Salut.


----------



## bass player

There are hundreds of peer reviewed papers that are skeptical of dangerous warming, none of which governments or the IPCC have any interest in at all.

And, yes, there is no evidence. There are computer projections but those same computer models can't reproduce the pause, the Little Ice Age, or the Medieval Warming Period. If they can't reproduce the past, then they certainly can't be trusted to predict the future.


----------



## new dog

We should be recycling using less and all doing better. We should encourage energy to go towards zero emissions and encourage industry to go there. Lots and lots of common sense needs to be used and we shouldn't be signing over the power to anyone else like deals with the EU or whatever. Someone is always trying to exploit our concerns so they can make lots of money and gain power.

No one knows what the climate will really do and we can continue to study it and do what we can do to not pollute the earth. People must be involved in all levels not just collecting tax money or digging into pockets to make the difference.


----------



## none

bass player said:


> Gravity is known, proven, and measurable to the millionth of a gram. Climate has dozens of variables, many of which are not understood completely.
> 
> But, other than that, they are exactly the same!!! :very_drunk:


Is it? We see it happening but only have a theory to explain it. Space-time is a weird thing that we can't directly observe. I would argue that there's more evidence for the causal mechanisms of human caused climate change than direct evidence that curvature in space-time causes gravity. At least from a direct observation stand point at least.

PS this is a stupid thread.


----------



## none

In the last 650k years, Earth has gone through 7 periods of glacial advance and retreat. The last was 7k years ago, marking the end of the Ice Age.
CO2 was demonstrated to trap heat in the mid 19th century. In the course of the last 650k years, Earth atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above 300ppm, and we know that through mineral deposits, fossils, and arctic ice leaving telltale predictable signs of how much CO2 must have been in the air at the time. Today, CO2 is over 400ppm. Not only have we kept fantastic records pre-industrial revolution, especially the Swedes for centuries, but arctic ice has acted as a more recent history of the last several dozen centuries. CO2 levels has been growing at unprecedented rates and achieving levels higher than we've ever known to occur that wasn't in the wake of planetary disaster and mass extinction. It follows that if CO2 traps heat, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, it's going to trap more heat than ever before.
Sea levels are rising. 17cm over the last century. The last decade alone has seen twice the rise of the previous century. So not only are the oceans rising, but the rate of rise is increasing exponentially.
The Earth's average temperature has increased since 1880, most of that has been in the last 35 years. 15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2001. We're in a period of solar decline, where the output of the sun cycles every 11 or so years. Despite the sun putting out less energy, the average continues to rise and in 2015 the Earth's average was 1C hotter on average than in 1890. That doesn't sound like much, but if we go some 0.7C hotter, we'll match the age of the dinosaurs when the whole planet was a tropical jungle. That's not a good thing.
The ice caps are losing mass. While we've seen cycles of recession and growth, you have to consider ice is more than area, it's also thickness and density. Yes, we've seen big sheets of ice form, but A) they didn't stay, and B) how thick were they? Greenland has lost 60 cubic miles of ice and Antarctica has lost at least 30 cubic miles, both in the last decade. Greenland is not denying global warming, they're feverishly building ports to poise themselves as one of the most valuable ocean trading hubs in the world as the northern pass is opening, and it's projected you'll be able to sail across the north pole, a place you can currently stand, year-round.
Glacier ice is retreating all over the world, in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of unprecedented intense weather events has been increasing since 1950 in the US. The number of record highs has been increasing, and record lows decreasing.
The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 and water makes carbonic acid, - seltzer water! The oceans are 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution. 93% of The Great Barrier Reef has been bleeched and 22% and rising is dead as a consequence. The ocean currently absorbs 9.3 billion tons of CO2 a year and is currently absorbing an additional 2 billion tons annually. Not because the ocean is suddenly getting better at it, but because there's more saturation in the atmosphere.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
National Snow and Ice Data Center
World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification?
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.


----------



## bass player

none:

You have repeated several falsehoods that have been proven wrong time and time again. Pointing out all of the errors would be a waste of my time because it would fall on deaf ears.


----------



## none

bass player said:


> none:
> 
> You have repeated several falsehoods that have been proven wrong time and time again. Pointing out all of the errors would be a waste of my time because it would fall on deaf ears.


In the last 650k years, Earth has gone through 7 periods of glacial advance and retreat. The last was 7k years ago, marking the end of the Ice Age.
CO2 was demonstrated to trap heat in the mid 19th century. In the course of the last 650k years, Earth atmospheric CO2 levels has never been above 300ppm, and we know that through mineral deposits, fossils, and arctic ice leaving telltale predictable signs of how much CO2 must have been in the air at the time. Today, CO2 is over 400ppm. Not only have we kept fantastic records pre-industrial revolution, especially the Swedes for centuries, but arctic ice has acted as a more recent history of the last several dozen centuries. CO2 levels has been growing at unprecedented rates and achieving levels higher than we've ever known to occur that wasn't in the wake of planetary disaster and mass extinction. It follows that if CO2 traps heat, and there's more CO2 in the atmosphere than ever before, it's going to trap more heat than ever before.
Sea levels are rising. 17cm over the last century. The last decade alone has seen twice the rise of the previous century. So not only are the oceans rising, but the rate of rise is increasing exponentially.
The Earth's average temperature has increased since 1880, most of that has been in the last 35 years. 15 of the 16 hottest years have been since 2001. We're in a period of solar decline, where the output of the sun cycles every 11 or so years. Despite the sun putting out less energy, the average continues to rise and in 2015 the Earth's average was 1C hotter on average than in 1890. That doesn't sound like much, but if we go some 0.7C hotter, we'll match the age of the dinosaurs when the whole planet was a tropical jungle. That's not a good thing.
The ice caps are losing mass. While we've seen cycles of recession and growth, you have to consider ice is more than area, it's also thickness and density. Yes, we've seen big sheets of ice form, but A) they didn't stay, and B) how thick were they? Greenland has lost 60 cubic miles of ice and Antarctica has lost at least 30 cubic miles, both in the last decade. Greenland is not denying global warming, they're feverishly building ports to poise themselves as one of the most valuable ocean trading hubs in the world as the northern pass is opening, and it's projected you'll be able to sail across the north pole, a place you can currently stand, year-round.
Glacier ice is retreating all over the world, in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of unprecedented intense weather events has been increasing since 1950 in the US. The number of record highs has been increasing, and record lows decreasing.
The ocean absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere. CO2 and water makes carbonic acid, - seltzer water! The oceans are 30% more acidic since the industrial revolution. 93% of The Great Barrier Reef has been bleeched and 22% and rising is dead as a consequence. The ocean currently absorbs 9.3 billion tons of CO2 a year and is currently absorbing an additional 2 billion tons annually. Not because the ocean is suddenly getting better at it, but because there's more saturation in the atmosphere.
IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers, p. 5
B.D. Santer et.al., “A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere,” Nature vol 382, 4 July 1996, 39-46
Gabriele C. Hegerl, “Detecting Greenhouse-Gas-Induced Climate Change with an Optimal Fingerprint Method,” Journal of Climate, v. 9, October 1996, 2281-2306
V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first predicted that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20160120/
T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
National Snow and Ice Data Center
World Glacier Monitoring Service
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/W...idification?
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification
C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.


----------



## Karlhungus

Saw this posted in reddit and thought it was an excellent way to describe why baby boomers would be skeptical. (im born in 1982 but am skeptical as well.)

"However, my parents are far-right leaning conservatives who believe that climate change is utter hogwash."
I think a lot of the generational disconnect comes from older generations remembering scares of the past. Let's consider what they were exposed to growing up, and perhaps that will help you understand why they don't find arguments for climate change compelling.
They likely grew up during the cold war, as I did. We were told that nuclear war was imminent. Those mad Ruskies were just itching to push the button. Have you ever seen the old Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen (yeah) movie Red Dawn? Growing up when I did, we thought that was a training film.
Your parents are likely older than me, but they were still children of the Cold War. Against that backdrop, your parents then heard Paul Ehrlich telling anyone who would listen that hundreds of millions of people were going to starve to death by 1980. They heard how acid rain was going to upset ecosystems. They knew that peak oil was going to destroy civilization. The rainforests were going to be chopped down and with it, the ability of the Earth to produce oxygen. Eggs were going to give them heart attacks, so they better start eating lots of carbs for breakfast. Smog would kill millions. And, yes, they were told that global cooling was coming.
Keep in mind that each one of those scares was accompanied by authoritative people, often scientists, on the evening news or in the newspapers, confirming that such dangers were real. In some cases, like eating fatty foods, there was near consensus in that field. In other cases, like global cooling, there wasn't, but your parents never heard dissenting voices.
So here your parents are in 2016, having survived all the catastrophes they were promised would kill them, and finding (in their minds) a new scare, complete with the authorities (in some cases the same authorities) telling them how climate change will kill them for sure. Given their experience, why would they listen? Why would they be dubious at the very least or downright cynical at most?
Now I'm not saying that climate change isn't real or doesn't pose potential dangers. I'm just trying to help you understand where your parents might be coming from. You might even discuss past scares with them, then explain why you feel this time is different. That would demonstrate to them that you are really after genuine understanding.


----------



## Karlhungus

Also of interest:

*Alarmists*. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They say the danger is imminent, so scare tactics are both necessary and appropriate, especially to counter the deniers. They implicitly assume that all global warming and human-caused global warming are identical.
*Exaggerators*. They know the science but exaggerate for the public good. They feel the public doesn’t find an 0.64°C change threatening, so they have to cherry-pick and distort a little—for a good cause.
*Warmists*. These people stick to the science. They may not know the answer to every complaint of the skeptics, but they have grown to trust the scientists who work on the issues. They are convinced the danger is serious and imminent.
*Lukewarmists*. They, too, stick to the science. They recognize there is a danger but feel it is uncertain. We should do something, but it can be measured. We have time.
*Skeptics*. They know the science but are bothered by the exaggerators, and they point to serious flaws in the theory and data analysis. They get annoyed when the warmists ignore their complaints, many of which are valid. This group includes auditors, scientists who carefully check the analysis of others.
*Deniers*. They pay little attention to the details of the science. They are “unconvincibles.” They consider the alarmists’ proposals dangerous threats to our economy, so exaggerations are both necessary and appropriate to counter them.


----------



## like_to_retire

Karlhungus said:


> ...I think a lot of the generational disconnect comes from older generations remembering scares of the past....


_"Even today, in the face of a problem with no apparent solution, people often quote_ 'The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894', _urging people not to despair, something will turn up!_
_
This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

This became known as the ‘Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894’. 

The terrible situation was debated in 1898 at the world’s first international urban planning conference in New York, but no solution could be found. It seemed urban civilization was doomed." _


----------



## s123

like_to_retire said:


> _"Even today, in the face of a problem with no apparent solution, people often quote_ 'The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894', _urging people not to despair, something will turn up!_
> _
> This problem came to a head when in 1894, The Times newspaper predicted... “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”
> 
> _



wow! Can you imagine that? :eek-new:

Carbon tax is bringing everybody's attention because directly affects them.
Is it only the way of consumers / industries makes some effort of reducing the pollution?
I wonder why only talk about climate change and silence to the health impacts.

The rich or poor, we are all breathing the air that's not inescapable.
The pollution affects our health and also minds.
Then there is without tax/incentive that the most of the people won't try to keep track their act on or making their efforts. 
People will react when the time of necessity that's starting see the visible problems.
There are a lot of invisible pollution /contamination surrounding us that need look after also.

The impact on the earth/health will start to appear more visibly so I guess we will all move on toward environment protection without argument in near the future.
Industries/developments will need strict environment assessment before start developing.


Our health is important and there are also silence of victims (animal, birds, all other organism) involved there that should be recognizing and make it better for them too.

Let's look at Paris and think about your health & environment near by.

- Paris pollution: 'What are we waiting for?'
Published on Dec 8, 2016 ---France 24
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bixNIowxkQ


----------



## bass player

No one is against clean air and clean water. 

It's when some people try to claim that CO2 is pollution that their BS meter goes off. And, rightfully so.


----------



## Pluto

^^^^
Yes, Karlhungus, you put it well. It is no longer the boy who cried wolf, it is a gaggle of boys crying wolf. One alarmist claim I recall from the 1970's was the proposed Alaska pipeline will kill all the Caribou. At that time I foolishly backed the moratorium because "it might be true". Eventually the pipeline went through and after that the population of Caribou tripled. They love the pipeline and can be see leaning against it in winter to get some heat. 
Another one was human activity, primarily logging, was killing off the White spotted owl. This wasn't based on science it was based on a pseudo scientific paper written by a college student. Never the less that paper was taken to court by a lawyer to petition a judge to ban all logging on government lands in Washington. The court agreed. Years later it was determined that the Spotted owl was being killed off by a larger more aggressive Bard owl, and that logging actually helps owls by creating clearings in which they can fly freely and hunt for prey. 
Once it was discovered that it was the Bard owl, not logging, that was threatening the White Spotted owl, the government sent out teams of three to hunt and shoot the Bard owl with shotguns. But logging is still banned and those who proclaim themselves as environmentalist even though the are alarmists who could care less about the facts, carry on promoting foolish solutions as usual.


----------



## Pluto

s123 said:


> Is it only the way of consumers / industries makes some effort of reducing the pollution?
> 
> 
> Our health is important and there are also silence of victims (animal, birds, all other organism) involved there that should be recognizing and make it better for them too.
> 
> Let's look at Paris and think about your health & environment near by.
> 
> - Paris pollution: 'What are we waiting for?'
> Published on Dec 8, 2016 ---France 24
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bixNIowxkQ


France gets about 90% of its power from clean nuclear power. Can you imagine what Paris would look like if they used coal? Unfortunately the alarmist anti nuclear "green" power lobby forces use of coal. I applaud France for refusing to give in to the anti nuclear pressure.


----------



## Pluto

none said:


> Is it? We see it happening but only have a theory to explain it. Space-time is a weird thing that we can't directly observe. I would argue that there's more evidence for the causal mechanisms of human caused climate change than direct evidence that curvature in space-time causes gravity. At least from a direct observation stand point at least.
> 
> PS this is a stupid thread.


Space-time can be mathematically described, and Einstein's mathematical description has not been successfully challenged. His theory coheres exactly with the observed motion of bodies, and reportedly, of the observed bending of light, yet you are skeptical of it. Meanwhile, the flagship climate model is full of holes, doesn't cohere with the temperature records, yet you think it is infallible. Maybe that's an instance of stupidity.


----------



## none

Pluto said:


> Space-time can be mathematically described, and Einstein's mathematical description has not been successfully challenged. His theory coheres exactly with the observed motion of bodies, and reportedly, of the observed bending of light, yet you are skeptical of it. Meanwhile, the flagship climate model is full of holes, doesn't cohere with the temperature records, yet you think it is infallible. Maybe that's an instance of stupidity.


Not at all. All models are wrong but models can be useful. You need to put thing in relative risk.

The associated risks with Type I and Type II errors are vastly different for these climate change predictions. Insurance is sometimes worth the cost.

Quantum mechanics is full of holes too. We still don't know where all the missing mass of the universe is. I'd call that a hole.


----------



## Pluto

none said:


> Not at all. All models are wrong but models can be useful. You need to put thing in relative risk.
> 
> The associated risks with Type I and Type II errors are vastly different for these climate change predictions. Insurance is sometimes worth the cost.
> 
> Quantum mechanics is full of holes too. We still don't know where all the missing mass of the universe is. I'd call that a hole.


1. Sea levels apparently go down during an ice age due to more land based ice. Sea levels rise during a warming period due to less land based ice. This happens regardless of the presence of humans. 
2. now we get to humans are causing warming due to co2 emissions and the idea that insurance is worth the cost. A present day technology is available to eliminate a great deal of co2 emissions,namely, nuclear power. But the Greens say no, the insurance of replacing coal with nuclear is not worth the cost. Given that, your fight isn't with me, its with the anti - nuclear Greens. 

3. Since the Greens oppose a practical present day solution to co2 emissions, ie replacing coal with nuclear, I see their alarmism as groundless bombast and blustering. If the Greens really believed in their catastrophic warming projections, they would pay the cost of nuclear insurance. But they don't. Hence, I have no interest in your rising sea level claims, and c02 PPM claims. If the Greens don't care, why should I? 

4. reportedly, even if emissions were reduced according political agreements, warming would be reduced by a ridiculously low 0.1 degree C. So reaching politically agreed upon goals is effectively useless. 

And don't tell me wind and solar. Even the Greens in Germany couldn't do it so they caved in and started building more coal plants despite their insistence that burning coal would cause catastrophic warming. 

However, to end on a slightly positive note, you seem to have discovered recently that theories are models, or paradigms. Previously you talked like an out moded, kaput logical empiricist with their incoherent idea of a body of immutable facts.


----------



## none

Gravity is a theory BTW...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

On the good side, this winter has been remarkably mild so far, at least where I live. So maybe we are finally getting some benefit from this much advertised Global Warming. Maybe I got discouraged too soon.

Since I live in Canada, my big disappointment was that there is too little Global Warming not too much.


----------



## Eder

new dog said:


> We should be recycling using less and all doing better. We should encourage energy to go towards zero emissions and encourage industry to go there. Lots and lots of common sense needs to be used and we shouldn't be signing over the power to anyone else like deals with the EU or whatever. Someone is always trying to exploit our concerns so they can make lots of money and gain power.
> 
> No one knows what the climate will really do and we can continue to study it and do what we can do to not pollute the earth. People must be involved in all levels not just collecting tax money or digging into pockets to make the difference.


Thanks for this post....refreshing...I read it at least 4 times and feel more comfortable being a warmist agnostic.


----------



## Pluto

none said:


> Gravity is a theory BTW...


Sorry none. Nice try. 
Gravity is a force. There are four forces in the universe. Gravity, electro magnetic, and two types of nuclear forces. There are theories about these forces, but the forces themselves are not theories. Some physicists are working on unified theory, that is, one theory of all the 4 forces. (Some scientists believe there is a fifth force, namely, centripetal force. But not all scientists agree - ie no consensus, contrary to the myth that all scientist must agree with each other.)
Did you ever consider reading a little on the history of science? That could really smooth out some of the rough edges in your education.


----------



## none

Nope. Gravity is a theory. Apparently theory doesn't mean what you think it means....... I'm not surprised.

http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law


----------



## Pluto

new dog said:


> We should be recycling using less and all doing better. We should encourage energy to go towards zero emissions and encourage industry to go there. Lots and lots of common sense needs to be used and we shouldn't be signing over the power to anyone else like deals with the EU or whatever. Someone is always trying to exploit our concerns so they can make lots of money and gain power.
> 
> No one knows what the climate will really do and we can continue to study it and do what we can do to not pollute the earth. People must be involved in all levels not just collecting tax money or digging into pockets to make the difference.


Yes. Apparently some environmental radicals have backed off of their opposition to emissions free nuclear. 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/environmental-groups-change-tune-on-nuclear-power-1466100644

Hopefully radical environmentalist will continue to moderate their extreme and destructive views that have contributed to a lot of pollution and co2. It is shocking how they have blamed others for pollution, while they have implicitly promoted coal burning, the number one polluter.


----------



## bass player

Okay...gravity is a theory. But, gravity has nothing at all to do with global warming.


----------



## none

bass player said:


> Okay...gravity is a theory. But, gravity has nothing at all to do with global warming.


Just another example that you bozo's actually don't know what you're talking about. Keep it up guys! LOL


----------



## Pluto

none said:


> Nope. Gravity is a theory. Apparently theory doesn't mean what you think it means....... I'm not surprised.
> 
> http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experiment/gravity-theory-or-law


I'm sorry none. Just get a high school, or college level introductory physics text book and read it. It is plain as day (to me) you don't have a clue about physics. 

The article you cite is talking about how does a theory become a law. And it uses the theory of the force of gravity as an example. Plus it is poorly written, which leaves room for your misinterpretation. 

You spend a lot of energy bluffing. My hypothesis is you have never taken a physics course at all ever in your life, nor ever read any physics book written by a physicist on physics. That little article on the Internet is not enough to get you grounded in physics.


----------



## bass player

none said:


> Just another example that you bozo's actually don't know what you're talking about. Keep it up guys! LOL


Please enlighten us as to what gravity has to do with global warming. All of us bozos are eagerly awaiting your vast knowledge and insight.


----------



## Pluto

*National Geographic "Years of Living Dangerously"*

national Geographic Television has recently aired a series on the environment called years of living dangerously. 

Its latest installment is about flooding in Miami and claims it is all due to man made global warming. The possibility that the land is sinking is not considered in this program. Similarly, the possibility that warming of the planet could be mostly due to natural factors beyond control of humans is not considered. 

This one sided program is an example of how unsuspecting, trusting viewers get brainwashed into uncritical acceptance of a particular perspective. 

Interestingly, the mayor of Miami has banned the phrase "global warming" in city hall....or something like that.


----------



## bass player

Miami's problems are due to poor planning, not warming. When people are allowed to build lower than high tide, it causes problems:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice/


----------



## carverman

bTW, the weather people are referring to the "polar vortex" again, hanging around this winter. 

A repeat of 2013...with extremely cold temps in the west right now, it's hard to believe that 'global warming" is here...
those temperature swings in the wintertime can be brutal!

The carbon tax coming in January 2017 on fuel, heating oil and electricity is JUST ANOTHER SCAM to steal more money out of the pockets of Ontarioans and the inhabitants of other provinces. 

You can bet that the USA with Trump at the helm, is not going to implement any carbon tax,now or in the future on their carbon based fuel consumption, and the US by far (with the exception of maybe China, Russia and India), is the biggest user of carbon based fuels. .

Wynne -> Big Scammer!


----------



## jargey3000

none said:


> Just another example that you bozo's actually don't know what you're talking about. Keep it up guys! LOL


Speaking of not knowing...Why would you spell bozos WRONG, with the apostrophe s; but spell guys RIGHT with no apostrophe? It is either bozos & guys, or bozo's & guy's? Can't understand that. What is your theory...?LOL


----------



## bass player

Global warming = fake news.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> This one sided program is an example of how unsuspecting, trusting viewers get brainwashed into uncritical acceptance of a particular perspective.


Yeah, those pesky scientists and their one sided brainwashing. Can you imagine what they'd achieve if they would only commit to objectivity and experimentation.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Yeah, those pesky scientists and their one sided brainwashing. Can you imagine what they'd achieve if they would only commit to objectivity and experimentation.


There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the issue, but none of the scientists on the skeptical side are employed by the IPCC, and none of them seem to receive government grants to prove their theory.

I'm sure that's just a coincidence...


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Please enlighten us as to what gravity has to do with global warming. All of us bozos are eagerly awaiting your vast knowledge and insight.


Saying global warming is "just a theory" just reveals your ignorance of what the term 'theory' means.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Saying global warming is "just a theory" just reveals your ignorance of what the term 'theory' means.


You didn't answer the question. Why are you comparing gravity to global warming when they have absolutely nothing to do with each other? The only possible reason is a weak attempt to legitimize warming by comparing it to something that everyone knows exists.

Based on your reasoning...it is obvious that we are heading for an ice age. I know this is true because gravity exists.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the issue, but none of the scientists on the skeptical side are employed by the IPCC, and none of them seem to receive government grants to prove their theory.
> 
> I'm sure that's just a coincidence...


It certainly would be a coincidence if it were true but it's not. 

Over 97% of scientists who are in a position to know, tell us that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is real. 

The other 3% is employed by the carbon industry.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> It certainly would be a coincidence if it were true but it's not.
> 
> Over 97% of scientists who are in a position to know, tell us that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is real.
> 
> The other 3% is employed by the carbon industry.


Fake news.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> It certainly would be a coincidence if it were true but it's not.
> 
> Over 97% of scientists who are in a position to know, tell us that anthropogenic global warming/climate change is real.
> 
> The other 3% is employed by the carbon industry.


so where does Dr. Roy Spencer fit in here? Apparently nowhere as he doesn't work for the carbon industry, and he's a critic of current theory. So something seems to be awry with your figures. More realistic figures are that it isn't 97%, but about 50/50.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> Miami's problems are due to poor planning, not warming. When people are allowed to build lower than high tide, it causes problems:
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/07/miamis-vice/


Thanks. That seems to be a more balanced overview of Miami's problems. Blaming it completely on man made global warming is just manipulation.


----------



## sags

The oldest insurance company in the world Lloyd's of London, produced a report on climate change, with information and many examples.

https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging risk reports/cc and modelling template v6.pdf

One snippet from the report.........

_The approximately 20 centimetres of sea-level rise at the southern tip of Manhattan Island increased SUPERSTORM Sandy’s surge losses by 30% in New York alone._


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> The oldest insurance company in the world Lloyd's of London, produced a report on climate change, with many examples.
> 
> https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/emerging risk reports/cc and modelling template v6.pdf


An insurance company capitalizes on people's overblown fears to raise rates. Shocking!! Thank you for making that possible, progressives.


----------



## sags

bass player said:


> An insurance company capitalizes on people's overblown fears to raise rates. Shocking!! Thank you for making that possible, progressives.


Except the losses are paid in real dollars and the costs are rising, as investors in insurance companies are well aware of.

Homes and businesses actually are destroyed.........as in Fort McMurray and more recently in Tennessee due to fires in extreme drought conditions in forested lands. The damage from catastrophic events related to conditions caused by climate change are observable.

Increased premiums are inevitable, as is the possibility that insurance companies will not provide coverage at all in some areas.

Another snippet from the report. There is no doubt the oceans have become more acidic and warmer.

_Atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane and nitrous oxide are higher than at any time during the last 800,000 years. The main causes for this are the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use. 

Since pre-industrial times atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% and the world’s oceans have absorbed about 30% of the emitted carbon.

This increased uptake by the oceans results in their increased acidification levels. _


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Except the losses are paid in real dollars, as investors in insurance companies are well aware of.


Of course they are. Perhaps the fact that property values and property density near the ocean has greatly increased is the reason why a storm causes far more damage.

Instead of 1000 homes valued at $100,000 which is a $100 million hit to the insurance companies, the same storm now hits 3000 homes valued at $400,000 which is a $1.2 billion claim.


----------



## sags

Most scientists are part of a climate change conspiracy, along with insurance companies, governments, capital markets and apparently the Bank of England.......is the "climate denier" position ?

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ks-from-climate-change-tragedy-of-the-horizon

That is one big conspiracy theory right there.

Thank goodness we have the expertise and knowledge of the "truthers" to keep it real.

These would be the same people who "revealed" that JFK faked his own assassination so he could administer the US government deep within a mountain hidden from view, the moon landing was faked, Hitler retired in Argentina, Elvis was seen lurking around Graceland, aliens live under Antarctica and control the world leaders, 911 was an inside job, and Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Climate change deniers suffer from what I would charitably call.........."a credibility gap".


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> so where does Dr. Roy Spencer fit in here? Apparently nowhere as he doesn't work for the carbon industry, and he's a critic of current theory. So something seems to be awry with your figures. More realistic figures are that it isn't 97%, but about 50/50.


50/50? Why is everybody saying 97/3? 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

On Dr Roy Spencer, fair enough. He doesn't work for the carbon industry. He sells books to climate change deniers. No doubt there are other scientists who have found a way to get paid for denying the evidence .  (Don't take this part too seriously, I'm making fun of a line of argument that suggests that scientists promote climate change for profit)


----------



## bass player

Global warming...the new religion for progressives. And, just like religion, any and all facts that disprove their god are immediately dismissed, and those who disagree accused of being paid for by Big Oil, or they are conspiracy theorists.

Rather than tithing, they make donations to their god in the form of punishing energy policies, and now want to legislate even more payments to their god in the form of a carbon tax. It's a great scam...even the non-believers have to pay the Big Green god.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> 50/50? Why is everybody saying 97/3?
> 
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
> 
> On Dr Roy Spencer, fair enough. He doesn't work for the carbon industry. He sells books to climate change deniers. No doubt there are other scientists who have found a way to get paid for denying the evidence .  (Don't take this part too seriously, I'm making fun of a line of argument that suggests that scientists promote climate change for profit)


Who are "climate change deniers"? I don't deny climate change. He doesn't. Everybody isn't saying 97/3. It is only people who are one sided that say that. There is simply no clear proof that humans cause all of climate change. that isn't a denial of climate change.


----------



## none

Humans are the main culprit to climate change.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Most scientists are part of a climate change conspiracy, along with insurance companies, governments, capital markets and apparently the Bank of England.......is the "climate denier" position ?
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ks-from-climate-change-tragedy-of-the-horizon
> 
> That is one big conspiracy theory right there.
> 
> Thank goodness we have the expertise and knowledge of the "truthers" to keep it real.
> 
> These would be the same people who "revealed" that JFK faked his own assassination so he could administer the US government deep within a mountain hidden from view, the moon landing was faked, Hitler retired in Argentina, Elvis was seen lurking around Graceland, aliens live under Antarctica and control the world leaders, 911 was an inside job, and Barack Obama was born in Kenya.
> 
> Climate change deniers suffer from what I would charitably call.........."a credibility gap".


There is no "climate denier position". Who denies climate? No one. In your recent posts you don't mention that the US east sea coast is reportedly subject to land sinking, thereby exaggerating the apparent sea rise. If you look at the west coast, I don't think you find 20cm sea rise. 

this global warming site is more credible: 
http://www.drroyspencer.com/my-global-warming-skepticism-for-dummies/

It is to be expected, that when the last ice age ended some 10000 -7000 years ago the natural warming would cause land based ice to start melting. Its obvious then that sea levels would rise. As far as I can tell you are a denier of natural warming and cooling, a clear credibility gap. The post ice age warming is not being disputed, its the cause of the warming. The fact that insurance companies use the language of the man made global warming perspective does not prove man made global warming. It could be that insurance companies uncritically accept the dogma of AWG. Just because they uncritically accept it, doesn't mean all people should. You may look to insurance companies for your evidence on climate issues, but that's your subjective choice.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

I guess I spoke too soon in my last post enjoying the Global Warming. Winter has come with a vengeance. -10 and lots of snow, unusual for December but not unprecedented. The warming blip El Nino gave us may be over, and we may be going back to the colder weather of the last 15 or 20 years.


----------



## andrewf

https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/winter-outlook-2016-2017-twc

Looks like around southern Ontario is supposed to be average temps:


----------



## Nelley

andrewf said:


> https://weather.com/storms/winter/news/winter-outlook-2016-2017-twc
> 
> Looks like around southern Ontario is supposed to be average temps:


I think the theory is the Global Warming causes the record cold weather-then when it is hot that is Global Warming also of course (or the work of Putin).


----------



## andrewf

I think the point is that the global average is more important than a few days of cold weather in Toronto.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

andrewf said:


> I think the point is that the global average is more important than a few days of cold weather in Toronto.


Not to me. I am enough of a peasant to call bullshit when someone tries to sell me "Global Warming" and I am freezing my *** off. You can bullshit an intellectual but not a peasant.


----------



## Pluto

1. very interesting speech/talk here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SOjyMir6Z0

In that speech it is noted that there is a .95 correlation between ocean warming and UFO sitings.....

Not to mention George Carlin's classic piece:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4


----------



## Pluto

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Not to me. I am enough of a peasant to call bullshit when someone tries to sell me "Global Warming" and I am freezing my *** off. You can bullshit an intellectual but not a peasant.


I don't blame you. The peasants in the US corn belt are not experiencing warming over the last 100 years or so, although it was quite warm in the 1930's dust bowl era, it cooled off to the point where the average indicates no warming. 

But I wouldn't expect the politically driven global warming folks to agree with the observations in the corn belt.


----------



## s123

Hang on Canada, we will see the 1°C soon :courage:

- RMR: Seven Day Forecast:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkDvqQKGgDA


----------



## Pluto

^

that's funny. 

And for some thoughts on the 97% consensus, here is one scientist who is included in the 97%:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Pluto said:


> I don't blame you. The peasants in the US corn belt are not experiencing warming over the last 100 years or so, although it was quite warm in the 1930's dust bowl era, it cooled off to the point where the average indicates no warming.
> 
> But I wouldn't expect the politically driven global warming folks to agree with the observations in the corn belt.


I have noticed before on the climate maps the hottest areas always seem to fall in the desert areas, Sahara desert, Outer Mongolia, The Arctic, Antarctic the middle of the ocean, etc. The average and cooler areas always seem to fall in the densely populated areas. So we got that going for us which is nice.


----------



## like_to_retire

Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared.

_"This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions".....

"The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states".....

"Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun"........_


----------



## Spudd

like_to_retire said:


> Proof that a new ice age has already started is stronger than ever, and we couldn’t be less prepared.
> 
> _"This is the unambiguous title of a new study from one of the world’s most prestigious scientific institutions".....
> 
> "The average temperature around the globe will fall by about 1.5 C when we enter the deep cooling phase of the Little Ice Age, expected in the year 2060,” the study states".....
> 
> "Unlike the global warming models of scientists, which were soon disproved by actual measurements, Abdussamatov’s models have been affirmed by actual events, including the rise of the oceans and the measurable irradiance sent earthward by the sun"........_


This is an opinion piece put out by a global warming denier. I would not take it too seriously.


----------



## like_to_retire

Spudd said:


> This is an opinion piece put out by a global warming denier. I would not take it too seriously.


So you don't have a problem with the science - just the messenger?


----------



## Spudd

like_to_retire said:


> So you don't have a problem with the science - just the messenger?


Here's another piece on the same topic from last year:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...toward-a-mini-ice-age/?utm_term=.7b90a8f949f7

I tend to believe the 97% of scientists who believe in global warming over the few people who say it's not. My theory is, if cutting back on waste and energy usage may help the environment, why not do it? If the climate isn't being affected by human activity my conservation efforts will not harm anything, and if it is, then I'm helping.


----------



## like_to_retire

Spudd said:


> ... My theory is, if cutting back on waste and energy usage may help the environment, why not do it? If the climate isn't being affected by human activity my conservation efforts will not harm anything, and if it is, then I'm helping.


Totally agree, but I have trouble when entire economies are harmed by governments through their response to what I believe is unproven and suspect. I think the 97% has been debunked enough times that it's hard to even bring up.


----------



## bass player

Spudd said:


> I tend to believe the 97% of scientists who believe in global warming...


There is no 97%. That's fake news.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole

Good news everybody! The north pole may be melting but it's snowing in the Sahara Desert! And you can totally believe it because it's on CNN.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/travel/sahara-snow/


----------



## new dog

Nice Rusty CNN is gold standard there is no way to refute it.


----------



## Spudd

One freak snowfall does not mean the world is cooling.


----------



## Pluto

Spudd said:


> Here's another piece on the same topic from last year:
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...toward-a-mini-ice-age/?utm_term=.7b90a8f949f7
> 
> I tend to believe the 97% of scientists who believe in global warming over the few people who say it's not.


Can you give me the name of a scientist who claimed the globe never cooled or warmed? 
As far as I know they all believe the climate has cooled and warmed at various times. I'm pretty sure this 3% denier thing is completely in your imagination. 

did you watch this short video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kotqWXZkZS0


----------



## Pluto

There should be an attachment showing research results of what scientists believe what. If you are logged in and click on it, you get a larger pic. 
It shows 52% believe warming is mostly human caused. 48% didn't think warming was mostly human caused.


----------



## sags

The North Pole has been above or near freezing for a couple of weeks. Ice that normally forms in the winter isn't developing.

The temperature is almost 40 degees higher than normal. One real time example of climate change saying......I am here.

_Strange things were seen in the Arctic sun,

As the scientists probe and drill.

But there is nothing stranger than ignoring the danger,

Until your pickled just like a dill._


----------



## Nelley

sags said:


> The North Pole has been above or near freezing for a couple of weeks. Ice that normally forms in the winter isn't developing.
> 
> The temperature is almost 40 degees higher than normal. One real time example of climate change saying......I am here.
> 
> _Strange things were seen in the Arctic sun,
> 
> As the scientists probe and drill.
> 
> But there is nothing stranger than ignoring the danger,
> 
> Until your pickled just like a dill._


Good thing Trump is going to slap that tariff on China-shut down those C02 pumpers you hate so much.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> The North Pole has been above or near freezing for a couple of weeks. Ice that normally forms in the winter isn't developing.
> 
> The temperature is almost 40 degees higher than normal. One real time example of climate change saying......I am here.[/I]


Yup, we all get how it works...any warm trend is a sign of global warming, while any cold snap is just "weather" and not an example of global cooling.


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> The temperature is almost 40 degees higher than normal. One real time example of climate change saying......I am here.
> 
> [/I]


DiCaprio ....was wondering where you went...knew you didn't go UofA lol...Chinooks are the *****


----------



## sags

bass player said:


> Yup, we all get how it works...any warm trend is a sign of global warming, while any cold snap is just "weather" and not an example of global cooling.


Both are consistent with global warming and climate change, and the model of "warm arctic....cold continent" science.

Climate change disrupts and displaces weather patterns. It doesn't make them disappear altogether.

Hence..........snow in Saudi Arabia and warm weather at the North Pole.

https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/lantao.sun/publications/2016_SPH_GRL.pdf


----------



## sags

Nelley said:


> Good thing Trump is going to slap that tariff on China-shut down those C02 pumpers you hate so much.


Like building the wall and draining the swamp, Trump was just using tariffs as a metaphoric concept, not a reality.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Both are consistent with global warming and climate change, and the model of "warm arctic....cold continent" science.
> 
> Climate change disrupts and displaces weather patterns. It doesn't make them disappear altogether.
> 
> Hence..........snow in Saudi Arabia and warm weather at the North Pole.
> 
> https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/lantao.sun/publications/2016_SPH_GRL.pdf


Both of those things have happened before. The cries of dangerous warming are fake news.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> The North Pole has been above or near freezing for a couple of weeks. Ice that normally forms in the winter isn't developing.
> 
> The temperature is almost 40 degees higher than normal. One real time example of climate change saying......I am here.
> 
> _Strange things were seen in the Arctic sun,
> 
> As the scientists probe and drill.
> 
> But there is nothing stranger than ignoring the danger,
> 
> Until your pickled just like a dill._


Santa has updated his sleigh with new technology: pontoons, and A/T tires so do't worry. 

It would be refreshing if you guys would at least watch some youtube video of the other side of the issue. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgKJpJyDXQ

Challange your mind. Listen to both sides before making your mind up.


----------



## sags

Pluto said:


> Santa has updated his sleigh with new technology: pontoons, and A/T tires so do't worry.
> 
> It would be refreshing if you guys would at least watch some youtube video of the other side of the issue.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExgKJpJyDXQ
> 
> Challange your mind. Listen to both sides before making your mind up.


Santa is up to Rudolph's antlers in high tech now :friendly_wink:..............(currently on Netflix and perfect for Christmas Day)


----------



## new dog

Scientist Jennifer Marahasy, writing for the Spectator Australia, with a long list of credentials, says we can't confirm recent warming is anything but natural with or without industry.

She applied the latest big data to six 2000 year long proxy temperature series and we can't confirm that recent warming is anything but natural. Of course the article goes on to say that her report will be completely ignored.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/20121/inconvenient-truth-our-planet-was-warmer-medieval-john-nolte


----------



## bass player

And more about the adjustments NOAA has made to the raw temperature data, which also ill be ignored, explained away, or dismissed just because:

https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/100-of-us-warming-is-fake/


----------



## sags

If you search long enough you will find somebody who will deny all scientific knowledge.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> If you search long enough you will find somebody who will deny all scientific knowledge.


You don't have to look very far...they're called "alarmists".


----------



## steve41

Or 'warmunists' or 'warmistas'.


----------



## Eder

I like this one written by a scientist refuting Al Gore rhetoric 

https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient...910&sr=8-1&keywords=an+inconvenient+deception

of course $3.99 might be inconvenient to some.


----------



## sags

One of the author's quotes.........

_"the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."_

Ding, ding, ding............I think we have a winner here. The earth is warming due to body heat. We need to spread out more.


----------



## Pluto

new dog said:


> Scientist Jennifer Marahasy, writing for the Spectator Australia, with a long list of credentials, says we can't confirm recent warming is anything but natural with or without industry.
> 
> She applied the latest big data to six 2000 year long proxy temperature series and we can't confirm that recent warming is anything but natural. Of course the article goes on to say that her report will be completely ignored.
> 
> http://www.dailywire.com/news/20121/inconvenient-truth-our-planet-was-warmer-medieval-john-nolte


yes, interesting article. Although Manhatten was supposed to be underwater a year ago, CNN is building a new office near the water. LOL. 

I'm curious, however, about the claim the Church did somthing nasty to Copernicus. As far as I know the church did nothing to him, and they got along fine. Apparently they treated him better than NASA treated Dr. Roy Spencer by putting him under some gag order.

I should add that the amont of co2 in the atmosphere is close to zero @ 0.04%. It is difficult for me to believe that such a tiny amount could contribute much to some climate disaster. Even if you double that amount of co2, it is still close to zero.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> And more about the adjustments NOAA has made to the raw temperature data, which also ill be ignored, explained away, or dismissed just because:
> 
> https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/100-of-us-warming-is-fake/


One absurd desperate tinkering after another. 

And speaking of the MWP, Hansen himself apparently was aware of that back in 1981 with his own work. 
https://realclimatescience.com/hansen-confirmed-the-mwp-in-1981/
Now they try to explain it away....


----------



## Eder

sags said:


> One of the author's quotes.........
> 
> _"the warming trend over the Northern Hemisphere, where virtually all of the thermometer data exist, is a function of population density at the thermometer site."_
> 
> Ding, ding, ding............I think we have a winner here. The earth is warming due to body heat. We need to spread out more.


So downtown Calgary would be the same temperature as the outlying countryside? Our radio station refutes this when we get -30. Often 5 degrees difference, I thought all frostbitten Canadians know this. At any rate the author mentions taking ambient air temperatures downtown may have significant accuracy errors...even Al Gore should admit that.


----------



## Pluto

Eder said:


> I like this one written by a scientist refuting Al Gore rhetoric
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient...910&sr=8-1&keywords=an+inconvenient+deception
> 
> of course $3.99 might be inconvenient to some.


The author, Dr. Roy Spencer is a man of integrity. He used to be a climate scientist at NASA but they gagged him from speaking out, so he got a new job with the freedom to speak out. Bill Marer had Gore on his show recently for a romantic laison. I wonder if Maher will ever invite Spencer.


----------



## olivaw

Dr. Spencer doesn't get invitations to major TV talk shows because he is not particularly well known or respected. His misstatement of the science are too easily disproven. For example, his 2012 claim that global warming is a function of population density is inconsistent with the data. Rural and Urban measurements show exactly the same trend. Basic stuff that.


----------



## steve41

So the UHI effect is just another denier conspiracy theory?


----------



## Eder

olivaw said:


> Rural and Urban measurements show exactly the same trend. Basic stuff that.


I guess one person's trend period is but a blink in time to another person. I like Spencer...he explains a lot of the current science so us peons can get a grip on whats going on without the hype of our planets Gore's & Moore's.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> Dr. Spencer doesn't get invitations to major TV talk shows because he is not particularly well known or respected. His misstatement of the science are too easily disproven. For example, his 2012 claim that global warming is a function of population density is inconsistent with the data. Rural and Urban measurements show exactly the same trend. Basic stuff that.


Please give references for this. For example, Antarctic is rural. What do you believe is the trend there? 
I suppose he is not well known among those engaged in confirmation bias. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuimRdB-kc4


----------



## olivaw

Pluto, you rely on _one_ scientist to provide your climate science but accuse _others_ of confirmation bias.

You're also selecting for isolated phenomena, like Antarctica ice sheets, instead of global temperature data. 

Eder, if you want the science explains in layman s terms, why not check out Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson?


----------



## BoringInvestor

Pluto said:


> Please give references for this. For example, Antarctic is rural. What do you believe is the trend there?
> I suppose he is not well known among those engaged in confirmation bias.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuimRdB-kc4


I'm curious Pluto - how do you know you're not engaging in confirmation bias?


----------



## OhGreatGuru

Pluto said:


> ...
> 
> I'm curious, however, about the claim the Church did somthing nasty to Copernicus. As far as I know the church did nothing to him, and they got along fine. Apparently they treated him better than NASA treated Dr. Roy Spencer by putting him under some gag order. ...


At a guess, just another ignorant writer confusing Copernicus with Galileo, and equally ignorant editors not catching the mistake.
(Or do internet News & Opinion sites even have editors?)


----------



## bass player

BoringInvestor said:


> I'm curious Pluto - how do you know you're not engaging in confirmation bias?


Why didn't you ask olivaw the same question? Are you engaging in confirmation bias?


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> Pluto, you rely on _one_ scientist to provide your climate science but accuse _others_ of confirmation bias.
> 
> You're also selecting for isolated phenomena, like Antarctica ice sheets, instead of global temperature data.
> 
> Eder, if you want the science explains in layman s terms, why not check out Bill Nye or Neil deGrasse Tyson?


1. Well no, I don't rely on one. For example I cited Hansen in this thread for support concerning the Medieval warm period as being higher than present, and global, not regional. And way back when, I was inundated with stuff from Jones and Mann. There are countless scientists that have contributed to my persective. 
2. This thread got revived as somone indicated more global temperature data tinkering. So you want me to rely on manipulated data. What's wrong with the raw data?
3. You are not answering the question. References please.


----------



## Pluto

bass player said:


> Why didn't you ask olivaw the same question? Are you engaging in confirmation bias?


well, for one thing I ask for references from olivaw so I can be educated by his sources. but he ignores the request because, apparently he has no source. 
In other words I pay attention to the claims and justifications of both sides. 
My history with olivaw is that once I gave him a reference to Spencers site and theory, he suddenly announced he would no longer discuss the issue. He has no critique of Spencers theory as it is a viable one. Instead he resorts to the usual tactic of smearing (Spencer) and provides no reference to back it up. 

And finally I am not engaged in confirmation bias because I have made no commitiment to one conclusion or the other. I think climate science doesn't know what causes warming and cooling. so I have no dog in the fight. What I do instead is challenge claims to knowledge that are clearly reaching too far.


----------



## Pluto

OhGreatGuru said:


> At a guess, just another ignorant writer confusing Copernicus with Galileo, and equally ignorant editors not catching the mistake.
> (Or do internet News & Opinion sites even have editors?)


you are probably correct. And the new oppressive church is the NASA climate science division. 
And even with Galileo they weren't trying to stop him from teaching his theories, they just didn't want him to teach it as The Truth. He could teach it as true, but not The Truth.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> well, for one thing I ask for references from olivaw so I can be educated by his sources. but he ignores the request because, apparently he has no source.
> In other words I pay attention to the claims and justifications of both sides.
> My history with olivaw is that once I gave him a reference to Spencers site and theory, he suddenly announced he would no longer discuss the issue. He has no critique of Spencers theory as it is a viable one. Instead he resorts to the usual tactic of smearing (Spencer) and provides no reference to back it up.
> 
> And finally I am not engaged in confirmation bias because I have made no commitiment to one conclusion or the other. I think climate science doesn't know what causes warming and cooling. so I have no dog in the fight. What I do instead is challenge claims to knowledge that are clearly reaching too far.


I am not obliged to provide references to individuals who refuse to consider them, particularly when they resort tired old myths like the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). That pseudo-scientific denialist theory was debunked years ago. 

http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf

In layman terms: 
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15373071
https://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm 



Pluto said:


> What's wrong with the raw data?


Exactly. Who looks at raw data? NASA, that's who. The very organization that you slander because they continue to publish data that disproves your preferred belief. 
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

As for our history - give me a break. I don't recall telling you I wouldn't discuss anything further with you. If I did, it would not have been because of the strength of your argument. If it happened at all, it would have been the weakness of your argument combined with your willingness to sink to insult. Confirmation bias? More like projection.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Why didn't you ask olivaw the same question? Are you engaging in confirmation bias?


Shouldn't you be posting something you heard on Alex Jones? I'm sure there must be a conspiracy theory that you haven't posted on this forum yet. Perhaps the one about the children kidnaped for the Martian slave colony. :disturbed:


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> I am not obliged to provide references to individuals who refuse to consider them, particularly when they resort tired old myths like the Urban Heat Island effect (UHI). That pseudo-scientific denialist theory was debunked years ago.
> 
> http://static.berkeleyearth.org/papers/UHI-GIGS-1-104.pdf
> 
> In layman terms:
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-15373071
> https://www.skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm
> 
> 
> Exactly. Who looks at raw data? NASA, that's who. The very organization that you slander because they continue to publish data that disproves your preferred belief.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> As for our history - give me a break. I don't recall telling you I wouldn't discuss anything further with you. If I did, it would not have been because of the strength of your argument. If it happened at all, it would have been the weakness of your argument combined with your willingness to sink to insult. Confirmation bias? More like projection.


1. Well I'm glad they finally got around to checking trends of rural vs urban. Took them long enough. But suspicious alterations of data apparently continue arising as pointed out a few posts back. https://realclimatescience.com/2017/...rming-is-fake/
2. I thought it was you some months ago that ended "serious discussion". But no matter. 
3. You don't know my preferred belief(s). One of my beliefs is that it was warmer in 1850 compared to 1650. pre-industraial age warming, who would have thought that? 
4. One of my beliefs is that the phrase "climate change denier" is a manipulation, a deception, used by alarmists apparently because they have nothing of substance to say. It is obvious climate changes with or without humans. 
5.Reportedly, Spencer's Kindle book An Inconvenient Deception is out selling Gore's by a long shot. Maybe people are becoming sane again.


----------



## olivaw

1. It was debunked in 2011 when Berkeley performed an independent analysis of the raw data. Your link asserting data manipulation doesn't work (403 Forbidden). *This link* from the WSJ works, but it is behind a paywall. It talks about the Berkeley findings: _“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections._

2) Ironically, I was the first (and perhaps only) to your defence when I felt that you were unfairly accused in another thread. It was some months ago too, no matter - at least to you. 

3) 1650 was the first climatic minimum of *the little ice age*. You're using selective data. You need to use all available data. 

4) Meh, the phrase _alarmist_ has a connotation too. Certainly the climate will change over time due to natural cycles. What we're seeing is an accelerated warming of the average global temperature and therein lines the danger. The world may not be in a position to adapt quickly enough. Industrialized nations may be able to live with the change. Poorer nations - those who contributed least to the disaster - will disproportionately suffer the consequences. 

5) You're right. Spencer's $3.99 Kindle Book is outselling Gore's $10.75 Kindle Book. Gore's material is also available in paperback, hardcover, audiobook and film. I'm not sure it reveals a trend that we haven't already noticed though. People who are convinced by the science have become weary of reading and hearing about climate change. The opposers of the science remain motivated.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> What we're seeing is an accelerated warming of the average global temperature and therein lines the danger.


That's incorrect. Virtually all of the recent "warming" is from adjustments to the raw data. So, in that regard, the phrase "man-made warming" is entirely accurate 

By the way, what's the "correct" temperature of the planet, and how was that number chosen?


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> That's incorrect. Virtually all of the recent "warming" is from adjustments to the raw data. So, in that regard, the phrase "man-made warming" is entirely accurate


Wrong. http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ suggest http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memos/Global-Warming-2014-Berkeley-Earth-Newsletter.pdf (PDF). 



bass player said:


> By the way, what's the "correct" temperature of the planet, and how was that number chosen?


There is no "correct" temperature. We're concerned about the accelerated rate of change.


----------



## bass player

What accelerated rate of change? The made-up one from the altered data? The raw data show no such warming.


----------



## Eder

bass player said:


> That's incorrect. Virtually all of the recent "warming" is from adjustments to the raw data. So, in that regard, the phrase "man-made warming" is entirely accurate
> 
> By the way, what's the "correct" temperature of the planet, and how was that number chosen?


Its too bad congress doesn't pursue apparent temperature fudging incidents with the same vigor they pursue the Russian connection haha.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> What accelerated rate of change? The made-up one from the altered data? The raw data show no such warming.


Again, http://berkeleyearth.org/data/ suggest http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memo...Newsletter.pdf (PDF). There is *no* data fudging. Indeed, the 2011 investigative study into fudging suggested that climate scientists had been remarkably careful to present accurate data. 



Eder said:


> Its too bad congress doesn't pursue apparent temperature fudging incidents with the same vigor they pursue the Russian connection haha.


The reverse if true. Republicans in congress have been going after climate science for years. It's too bad they don't pursue Russian election meddling with the same vigor they pursue honest American scientists. http://www.popsci.com/regardless-ho...sts-probably-didnt-manipulate-climate-records


----------



## bass player

Honest American scientists? Like Michael Mann, the creator of the fake hockey stick graph which was prominently featured in IPCC reports?

When will that massive fraud be investigated?

And, if you're going to continue bring up Russian meddling, why do you ignore John Podesta and his ties to Russian interests? Why should you be taken seriously, when there is real evidence of Democrat meddling and no evidence of Republican meddling that you completely ignore?


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Honest American scientists? Like Michael Mann, the creator of the fake hockey stick graph which was prominently featured in IPCC reports?
> 
> When will that massive fraud be investigated?
> 
> And, if you're going to continue bring up Russian meddling, why do you ignore John Podesta and his ties to Russian interests? Why should you be taken seriously, when there is real evidence of Democrat meddling and no evidence of Republican meddling that you completely ignore?


The hockey stick graph of 1999 was the first first comprehensive attempt to reconstruct the average northern hemisphere temperature over the past 1000 years, based on numerous indicators of past temperatures, such as tree rings. It shows temperatures holding fairly steady until the last part of the 20th century when it shot up. Most researchers agree that the original hockey stick was not far off the mark. Later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. 



> “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on ice caps and the retreat of glaciers around the world”


https://www.newscientist.com/articl...the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong/

----

Eder brought up the investigation into *Russian meddling*. That horse has been beat to death. Why rehash an argument that *you lost* months ago?


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> 1. It was debunked in 2011 when Berkeley performed an independent analysis of the raw data. Your link asserting data manipulation doesn't work (403 Forbidden). *This link* from the WSJ works, but it is behind a paywall. It talks about the Berkeley findings: _“When we began our study, we felt that skeptics had raised legitimate issues, and we didn’t know what we’d find. Our results turned out to be close to those published by prior groups. We think that means that those groups had truly been very careful in their work, despite their inability to convince some skeptics of that. They managed to avoid bias in their data selection, homogenization and other corrections._
> 
> 2) Ironically, I was the first (and perhaps only) to your defence when I felt that you were unfairly accused in another thread. It was some months ago too, no matter - at least to you.
> 
> 3) 1650 was the first climatic minimum of *the little ice age*. You're using selective data. You need to use all available data.
> 
> 4) Meh, the phrase _alarmist_ has a connotation too. Certainly the climate will change over time due to natural cycles. What we're seeing is an accelerated warming of the average global temperature and therein lines the danger. The world may not be in a position to adapt quickly enough. Industrialized nations may be able to live with the change. Poorer nations - those who contributed least to the disaster - will disproportionately suffer the consequences.
> 
> 5) You're right. Spencer's $3.99 Kindle Book is outselling Gore's $10.75 Kindle Book. Gore's material is also available in paperback, hardcover, audiobook and film. I'm not sure it reveals a trend that we haven't already noticed though. People who are convinced by the science have become weary of reading and hearing about climate change. The opposers of the science remain motivated.


1. Thank you for the defence.
2. The little ice age: the article referenced asked what caused it? the answer was maybe - "Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows,[70] the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population."
No mention of lower levels of co2. 
3. Climate will change due to natural cycles, you say. That implies that implies that if humans cause any warming it is not natural, as if humans are not part of nature. If humans are not part of nature, what are we part of? There seems to be a Nature/Non-nature dichotomy running through this controversy. 
But anyway, you seem to accept there is warming and cooling that has little or nothing to do with humans, and that is called "natural cycles". That's unusual in my experience. I don't recall encountering any pro AWG person having the slightest idea that there is or could be changes in climate outside of human causes. It is a relief to run into one, at least. ....oh actually this is incorrect...I just remembered in a recently watched documentry that David Suzuki clearly stated there was warming and cooling prior to humans being on the planet. Thank God. I've never heard him saying such a thing previously. Maybe he is clueing in that most of his followers are deluded and he is trying to give them some basic info. So that's two I can think of that acknowledge some climate change sans human activity. Hopefully this will turn into a trend in the media so more annoying greenies will actually know there is climate change precipitated by factors other than human.


----------



## Joe Black

Pluto said:


> 1. Thank you for the defence.
> 2. The little ice age: the article referenced asked what caused it? the answer was maybe - "Scientists have tentatively identified these possible causes of the Little Ice Age: orbital cycles, decreased solar activity, increased volcanic activity, altered ocean current flows,[70] the inherent variability of global climate, and reforestation following decreases in the human population."
> No mention of lower levels of co2.
> 3. Climate will change due to natural cycles, you say. That implies that implies that if humans cause any warming it is not natural, as if humans are not part of nature. If humans are not part of nature, what are we part of? There seems to be a Nature/Non-nature dichotomy running through this controversy.
> But anyway, you seem to accept there is warming and cooling that has little or nothing to do with humans, and that is called "natural cycles". That's unusual in my experience. I don't recall encountering any pro AWG person having the slightest idea that there is or could be changes in climate outside of human causes. It is a relief to run into one, at least. ....oh actually this is incorrect...I just remembered in a recently watched documentry that David Suzuki clearly stated there was warming and cooling prior to humans being on the planet. Thank God. I've never heard him saying such a thing previously. Maybe he is clueing in that most of his followers are deluded and he is trying to give them some basic info. So that's two I can think of that acknowledge some climate change sans human activity. Hopefully this will turn into a trend in the media so more annoying greenies will actually know there is climate change precipitated by factors other than human.


2. "Reforestation" actually implies lower CO2 as trees are a natural carbon sink. It's irrelevant though. Just because we say it's warmer now (primarily) because of increased CO2, doesn't mean the only way it could have been cooler in previous centuries is from less CO2.

3. I've never heard a "greenie", much less any scientist or well-known climate-change spokesperson like Suzuki deny there is natural climate change. Yet I continue to hear some of the skeptics bringing this up as their "proof", as if they are informing us of some astounding new fact we never knew before. It's like debating that there's no such thing as human-caused forest fires because we know there are natural causes like lightning strikes. That there is natural climate change is an agreed-upon fact, the debate is solely on how much the current change is being accelerated by human activity.

And your thing about human activity being part of nature - really?? You are saying oil slicks, giant islands of plastic floating in the oceans, city smog, radioactive byproducts from nuclear reactors, etc.etc., are part of "nature" because we humans are part of nature? That was only true when we lived as hunter-gatherers.


----------



## bass player

Joe Black said:


> 23. I've never heard a "greenie", much less any scientist or well-known climate-change spokesperson like Suzuki deny there is natural climate change. Yet I continue to hear some of the skeptics bringing this up as their "proof", as if they are informing us of some astounding new fact we never knew before.


Well, David Suzuki is well known, but he is not a climate scientist. Why do you mention him over actual scientists in the field? He can't even answer basic questions without looking like a fool. After this embarrassing TV appearance he will no longer take questions that he doesn't approve in advance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4SaIFsyxgA

No one claims that human activity doesn't affect the planet. But, the real questions are:

1. How much do humans affect the temperature?
2. How much warming, if it is really happening, is bad?
3. How much warming caused by humans is bad?
4. Is a small amount of warming better than cooling?

Throughout all of the planet's history, every time it got warmer life on earth flourished. Every time is got cold, life suffered and died off. To suggest that a small amount of warming will destroy life means that you have to ignore all of history.


----------



## Eder

Joe Black said:


> 2. giant islands of plastic floating in the oceans,


Tell me you really believe this lol.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> Exactly. Who looks at raw data? NASA, that's who. The very organization that you slander because they continue to publish data that disproves your preferred belief.
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


My recolection is that Jones and Mann firmly declined to release their raw data. 
Apparently they raised eyebrows for using a single tree in Quebec for a significant portion of their study. 
Not to mention that interpreting tree rings is highly subjective, yet it ends up being called "objective" data and used by the IPCC to manipulate untold numbers of people. 

There is a huge credibility gap flowing from such shenanigans.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> To suggest that a small amount of warming will destroy life means that you have to ignore all of history.


Global warming and the associated climate change will not destroy all life. Weather patterns will become more severe. There will be more wildfires. Many individuals in undeveloped regions die because they lack the resources to counter the impact. Insect borne diseases will spread Northward. Coastal infrastructure will be destroyed. Food production will be disrupted. Groundwater supplies will be stressed. There will be more air pollution. 



Eder said:


> Tell me you really believe this lol.


 Tell me that you don't. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/#feedbackform 



Pluto said:


> My recolection is that Jones and Mann firmly declined to release their raw data.
> ....
> There is a huge credibility gap flowing from such shenanigans.


I believe that Jones and Mann initially refused to release data in the 90s because they were afraid it was going to be used to attack them. Eventually they were persuaded to release the data. They made a first attempt to objectively measure climate change. Their data and measurements have been demonstrated to be correct by subsequent research with greater funding and access to measurement data. 

Today; Berkeley, CHCN, IMS, *NASA*, ICOADS, *IPCC*, Mauna Loa observatory and a few dozen others make raw data available. Processed data can be had from NOAA, Berkeley Earth, World Data Center for Greenhouse gases, Rutgers and many many more.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/


----------



## Pluto

Joe Black said:


> 2. "Reforestation" actually implies lower CO2 as trees are a natural carbon sink. It's irrelevant though. Just because we say it's warmer now (primarily) because of increased CO2, doesn't mean the only way it could have been cooler in previous centuries is from less CO2.
> 
> 3. I've never heard a "greenie", much less any scientist or well-known climate-change spokesperson like Suzuki deny there is natural climate change. Yet I continue to hear some of the skeptics bringing this up as their "proof", as if they are informing us of some astounding new fact we never knew before. It's like debating that there's no such thing as human-caused forest fires because we know there are natural causes like lightning strikes. That there is natural climate change is an agreed-upon fact, the debate is solely on how much the current change is being accelerated by human activity.
> 
> And your thing about human activity being part of nature - really?? You are saying oil slicks, giant islands of plastic floating in the oceans, city smog, radioactive byproducts from nuclear reactors, etc.etc., are part of "nature" because we humans are part of nature? That was only true when we lived as hunter-gatherers.


2. Well that's an acknowledgement of other factors besides co2 at work in climate. it implies that if it can get cooler without less co2, then it can get warmer without more co2. it could be that co2 is a small factor among many factors. 
3. But I don't argue that humans can't cause forest fires and can't influence the enviroment. I argure that humans are part of nature, not outside it, and since they are part of nature they can influence it. If humans were non-natural and in some snense outside nature, how could they have any influence on it? 
You seem to say taht humans were part of nature way back when, but with the development of scientific knowledge and new tecnologies we are somehow outside nature. You think that oil and plastic doesn't come from the material of the earth? You think that smog is bad while volcanic ash is good? Radioactive material comes from the earth - you think that isn't natural? If humans are outside nature now, why would you worry about what happens to nature? Oh, that's because we are not outside nature that we worry about nature. 

Anyway, I'm glad you acknowledge there are so called "natural" climate cycles. Such cycles are are not well understood. 

Despite the fact that such cycles are not well understood, the claim is apparently that co2 will accelerate "natural" warming cycle to the point of apocalyptic destruction for sure, without a doubt. But there is no proof that such destruction will occur. There is no proof that climate is as sensitive to co2 as is claimed. 

So co2 goes from .03% of the atmostphere to .04%. So what? The impact of that on climate is unknown. The fact that NASA claims to know is not credible. When faced with evidence to the contrary, such as the pause since about 1998, they essentiall ignore it, and reportedly tinker with data to make it look like temps still are rising. 

If co2 theory on warming is really true, they shouldn't engage in questionable tinkering and outrageous claims that harm their credibility.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> Global warming and the associated climate change will not destroy all life. Weather patterns will become more severe. There will be more wildfires. Many individuals in undeveloped regions die because they lack the resources to counter the impact. Insect borne diseases will spread Northward. Coastal infrastructure will be destroyed. Food production will be disrupted. Groundwater supplies will be stressed. There will be more air pollution. /[/url]


this should be balanced with the claim that in the last major ice age in which humans were around, humans were almost wiped out. estimate are that very few humans survived the ice age. When that age ended life of all kinds flourished. 

I'm not at all convinced that weather patterns become more severe. Hurricanes aledgedly have become more numerous and more severe, despite becoming less frequent and not as severe as the 1930's. I should note that the co2 levels didn't spike above NASA'a claimed historical levels until 1950, some 20 years after the frequent and ferocius hurricanes of the 1930's. 

Claims of a worsening of wildfires seems credible. However, as mention above, humans were almost wiped out in the last major ice age. Reportedly the hunter gatherer Native Indians of Nort America started forest fires to clear land. " More forest exists today in some parts of North America than when the Europeans first arrived."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_use_of_fire#Role_of_fire_by_natives
Even so, it is more politically correct to blame technologiclay advanced humans for wiping out the forests, despite the fact that forest cover now is about the same as it was in 1945. 

My theme is shenanigas with "facts". Facts reside within theories and worldviews. Theories and worldviews select facts that support them, and deselect facts that don't support them. 

So I don't look at only NASA. I want to know what the guy who was gagged by NASA says too.


----------



## Eder

olivaw said:


> on.
> 
> Tell me that you don't. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/great-pacific-garbage-patch/#feedbackform es/[/url]



Well if you believe this article then you're a bit gullible. Common depiction of the gyre is actually Manilla harbour and Japan after a tsunami..actual gyre is a few more parts per million of 3mm and smaller particles than normal ocean. I have friends that have sailed through the Pacific gyre...there is no pile or soup .


----------



## bass player

Joe Black said:


> giant islands of plastic floating in the oceans...


I guess if these huge islands really existed, you can provide a link to some pics? Or, are you just repeating more alarmist BS?


----------



## bass player

Many people claim that global warming is the greatest threat mankind faces. If that was truly the case, then there would be a lot of discussion and back and forth from experts, there would be public debates and various solutions analyzed and all the pros and cons of these solutions would be made public. In addition, some of the debate would discuss the benefits of warming and the benefits of increased CO2, and so on.

But, that's not what is happening. All the benefits are ignored or downplayed, data is altered secretly and repeatedly with no valid explanation, and no one on the alarmist side is willing to publicly debate the issue or answer any tough questions. Anyone who dares to disagree is labeled a "denier" and shunned by those with a vested interest in The Warming Industry.

There is no other branch of "science" in existence that uses the tactics employed by Big Climate.


----------



## steve41

The Cold War is over. The Communists and Socialists were discredited, Democracy and Capitalism prevailed. The problem is, the left have been licking their wounds ever since, until some bright spark discovered a correlation between C02 and temperature. Finally the nasty capitalists (ExxonMobil/Chevron...) were unmasked and the CAGW games were on.

What a mess!


----------



## bass player

Science has also shown that CO2 has a logarithmic effect and further increases will have little impact on the temperature as the vast majority of the effect happened long ago:

http://www.aaronsenvironmental.com/2010/03/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


----------



## olivaw

Eder said:


> Well if you believe this article then you're a bit gullible. Common depiction of the gyre is actually Manilla harbour and Japan after a tsunami..actual gyre is a few more parts per million of 3mm and smaller particles than normal ocean. I have friends that have sailed through the Pacific gyre...there is no pile or soup .


Yes, it is an extremely large area of relatively high plastic concentration in the Pacific Ocean. Presumably you acknowledge that it is not a natural phenomenon so I am left wondering why you objected to Joe's mention of it upthread. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

ETA: my wife wants me to go with her to Lowes so i'll address Bass and Pluto's comments later. I'll let Stve's comment lie.  Interesting debate guys.


----------



## sags

Hurricane Harvey is stalled in place over Texas, which is due to the global air flow affected by climate change.

This weather event isn't the first example as stalled heat waves have been causing widespread drought and fire damage in the recent past.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Hurricane Harvey is stalled in place over Texas, which is due to the global air flow affected by climate change.


As expected, the alarmists blame a naturally occurring hurricane on global warming. Of course, every single one of those same people were dead silent when the US went the longest period of time in recorded history WITHOUT a hurricane making landfall.



> This weather event isn't the first example as stalled heat waves have been causing widespread drought and fire damage in the recent past.


Stalled heat waves have nothing to do with CO2, and they also happened millions of years before humans ever existed.


----------



## sags

It makes more sense to me to believe the scientific consensus opinion than an isolated scientist claiming a global conspiracy.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> It makes more sense to me to believe the scientific consensus opinion than an isolated scientist claiming a global conspiracy.


Consensus isn't science. It's politics.


----------



## BoringInvestor

Pluto said:


> I think climate science doesn't know what causes warming and cooling. so I have no dog in the fight.


Your sentences contradict one another.

In your first sentence you assert climate science is wrong.
Therefore, you *do* have a dog in the fight, and an inherent bias in how you're looking at the data.

Your bias may or may not be helpful in guiding you to the truth, but at the very least it should be recognized as such.


----------



## sags

Denying the effects of climate change means people perpetually rebuild after each disaster rather than building to avoid disasters in the future.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Denying the effect of climate change means people perpetually rebuild after each disaster rather than building to avoid disasters in the future.


Good idea. A law needs to be passed to that no one is allowed to build on low land next to the ocean.

Perhaps those who believe strongly in "man made climate change" should be the first ones to move away from these areas. Yet, that isn't happening. Why is that? Is this just another example of "Do what I say, not what I do"?


----------



## Pluto

BoringInvestor said:


> Your sentences contradict one another.
> 
> In your first sentence you assert climate science is wrong.
> Therefore, you *do* have a dog in the fight, and an inherent bias in how you're looking at the data.
> 
> Your bias may or may not be helpful in guiding you to the truth, but at the very least it should be recognized as such.


In my first sentence I assert climate science doesn't really know what causes warming and cooling. There are competing theories. One or more of these theores could be correct, but it isn't really known yet. Yes, I have a perspective, but bias is too strong of a word. I don't have a firm commitiment to any theory. 

When you use the phrase "the data" I wonder, What data? The theory that co2 levels cause warming and cooling deselects all data that does not conform to the theory. so when you use the phrase "the data" you are only talking of some of the data. You want me to look at that data only and make a commitment to that one theory. Then you will say I am no longer biased even though I am not looking at "the data" but only the data selected by the theory you prefer.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> It makes more sense to me to believe the scientific consensus opinion than an isolated scientist claiming a global conspiracy.


This consensus stuff is strange. 
When Einstein publised his new theory of gravity, the consensus was Newton was right. Einsten was only one guy against everyone else. According to the consensus theory of truth, he must have been wrong. 
But the consensus theory of truth doesn't work. The consensus theory of truth has been proven wrong time and time again. 
The only reason in the global climate controversy they bring up "consensus" is to manipulate people who know little about science.


----------



## bass player

Skepticism in in every single field of science is acceptable, and in fact, is normal and welcome. The only place where skepticism causes anguish for some is when it comes to unproven theories on climate change.


----------



## sags

The "consensus" opinion isn't confined to climate scientists. It also includes oil companies, insurance companies and many major corporations impacted by climate changes.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> The "consensus" opinion isn't confined to climate scientists. It also includes oil companies, insurance companies and many major corporations.


It's funny how when an oil company goes with the flow to be politically correct or to cover their *** then suddenly their word is golden...yet for the prior 100 years they have been portrayed as evil.


----------



## Pluto

Hurricane Harvy vs the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900. 

In watching CNN and what have you, I expected more claims that this weather was due to global warming. But didn't hear anything of the sort. Am I missing something? 
Anyway, the Great Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was reportedly the deadliest natural disaster in US history. But CO2 didn't didn't rise above its alledged range until about 1950. I'm led to believe that both hurricanes were catagory 4. If golbal warming causes worse weather, why isn't the current storm catgory 5? 

Anyway, it is remarkable that no one I heard in the media is claiming this storm is due to global warming. That's a switch.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> When you use the phrase "the data" I wonder, What data? The theory that co2 levels cause warming and cooling deselects all data that does not conform to the theory. so when you use the phrase "the data" you are only talking of some of the data. You want me to look at that data only and make a commitment to that one theory. Then you will say I am no longer biased even though I am not looking at "the data" but only the data selected by the theory you prefer.


This isn't true. Scientists do not routinely ignore data that does not confirm to the theory. In this case, there would need to be a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to suppress or ignore the data. That's the opposite of science.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> This isn't true. Scientists do not routinely ignore data that does not confirm to the theory. In this case, there would need to be a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to suppress or ignore the data. That's the opposite of science.


Why would thousands of scientists need to suppress data? There are not thousands of scientist creating data and then suppressing or ignoring it...they are basing their opinion on data that is provided to them by a very small amount of people.

That number of people involved in the "adjusting" of the raw temperature data is very, very small. But, that adjusted data is the only source that thousands of scientists have to work with.


----------



## sags

It will take weeks or months to calculate all the data, and then subject the data to peer review before determining if Hurricane Harvey was directly caused by climate change. What climate scientists do know for a fact right now is that warmer air contains more water, and that the jet stream is further north leaving the storm in place for days, which is dropping record amounts of precipitation on the same area of Texas. Thus this category 4 storm created so much more water damage than we have seen in previous higher rated storms.


----------



## sags

Lloyds of London insurance company has been compiling ocean shipping records for hundreds of years. They have recorded increasingly higher wave heights over the decades. It is approaching the point where the largest ships are now threatened with being capsized by rogue waves.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> It will take weeks or months to calculate all the data, and then subject the data to peer review before determining if Hurricane Harvey was directly caused by climate change. What climate scientists do know for a fact right now is that warmer air contains more water, and that the jet stream is further north leaving the storm in place for days, which is dropping record amounts of precipitation on the same area of Texas. Thus this category 4 storm created so much more damage than we have seen in previous higher rated storms.


That is incorrect. The hurricane of 1900 was larger and did more damage. However, if you ignore 117 years of population growth, 117 years of inflation, and 117 years of infrastructure growth, and 117 years of residential and commercial building construction, then yes, the argument that the damage today was "higher" can be made. 

But, it's a meaningless argument whose only purpose is to hide the facts.


----------



## sags

If we don't build infrastructure to withstand climate change events, we are wasting the money.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> If we don't build infrastructure to withstand climate change events, we are wasting the money.


A hurricane is not a climate change event. However, I do agree that infrastructure must be designed and built to handle the local conditions. That's why earthquake prone areas have earthquake codes for building construction, and that's why there are insulation codes for construction on the Canadian prairies.


----------



## sags

The 1900 storm hit in a completely different area during an era where they didn't even know it was coming.

It also hit Texas in a different area. The two storms are completely different.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> It's funny how when an oil company goes with the flow to be politically correct or to cover their *** then suddenly their word is golden...yet for the prior 100 years they have been portrayed as evil.


Fun fact: Exxon knew about Climate Change as far back as 1977 but they spent money trying to convince the public that Climate Change was not real. 

*SciAm: Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago*



> Exxon was aware of climate change, as early as 1977, 11 years before it became a public issue, according to a recent investigation from InsideClimate News. This knowledge did not prevent the company (now ExxonMobil and the world’s largest oil and gas company) from spending decades refusing to publicly acknowledge climate change and even promoting climate misinformation—an approach many have likened to the lies spread by the tobacco industry regarding the health risks of smoking.


*The Climate Deception Dossiers (PDF)* reveals decades of intentional corporate disinformation by the fossil fuel industry.



> The innocuously titled “Global Climate Science Communications Plan,” written with the direct involvement of fossil fuel companies including ExxonMobil (then Exxon) and Chevron, details a plan for dealing with climate change that explicitly aimed to confuse and misinform the public.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> This isn't true. Scientists do not routinely ignore data that does not confirm to the theory. In this case, there would need to be a conspiracy of thousands of scientists to suppress or ignore the data. That's the opposite of science.


Well here is an example. On a sunny day if you put your hand on a black surface, such as a car, it is hot, probably too hot to hold you hand on it. If you touch a light coloured car, it is comparatively cool. so one factor that might be contributing to warming is dark coloured things such as roofs of buildings and blacktop roads. One scientist suggested painting roofs white might make a difference. This also relates to that fact that ice reflects heat, but if the ice is darkened by soot from industry for example, it might not reflect as much heat as compared to pristine ice. that might be why there are claims that in the industrialized north ice is melting, while the less industrialized south, the polar ice is not. 

Now, pointing out such possible factors is very very bad of me accroding to many. CO2 dummy, they will tell me .... ONLY co2 increase is contributing to warming. ONLY look at co2. 

Why only co2? There is no reason why only co2. Its a faithful commitment to an unproven theory. 

Too, you were given Roy Spencers theory as a possible alternative. You dismissed him without offering any scientific critique of his views. That's ignoring based on your faithful commitment to an unproven theory that warming is due to man made co2, and warming will continue unless co2 is reduced to pre-1950 levels.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Fun fact: Exxon knew about Climate Change as far back as 1977 but they spent money trying to convince the public that Climate Change was not real.


Ah...so in 1977 Exxon, and only Exxon "knew" about climate change, but for some reason all the other scientists at the time "knew" about the upcoming ice age. 

The reality is that Exxon simply stated in their report that they should be ready if the climate changed in the future. They did not know if there would be global warming, or an upcoming ice age, or if there would be any changes at all, but as good business people, they simply made plans in the event that things changed.


----------



## bass player

Pluto said:


> Why only co2? There is no reason why only co2. Its a faithful commitment to an unproven theory.


CO2 is a trace gas essential for life on Earth to exist. But, if you call it carbon it now sounds dirty and as a bonus, carbon exists everywhere because it's a building block of life, so it's easier to tax.

You can't tax the sun, so the sun's effect on climate is ignored.
You can't tax natural variations in weather, so they are also ignored.

Only carbon can be taxed, so they tax us on CO2, even though it isn't even carbon. But, that's just a silly little detail that's not important...


----------



## Pluto

Anyway, 10 - 15 years ago I recall CNN and its sister, CBC hammering away that global warming caused the ferocious hurricanes of that era....there will be more and more hurricanes and they will be stronger and stronger...went the hypnotic drum beat. 

But this hurricane I haven't heard that drumbeat. Perhaps 10 years of no landfall hurricanes at all muted that unscientific prediction and dubious connection to global warming.


----------



## Eder

olivaw said:


> Fun fact: Exxon knew about Climate Change as far back as 1977 but they spent money trying to convince the public that Climate Change was not real.
> 
> *SciAm: Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago*
> 
> 
> 
> /QUOTE]
> 
> Scientific American is very reputable & goes to great lengths to vet the stories it prints...(or not lol)
> 
> https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/27/scientific-american-sokalized/


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> Well here is an example. On a sunny day if you put your hand on a black surface, such as a car, it is hot, probably too hot to hold you hand on it. If you touch a light coloured car, it is comparatively cool. so one factor that might be contributing to warming is dark coloured things such as roofs of buildings and blacktop roads. One scientist suggested painting roofs white might make a difference. This also relates to that fact that ice reflects heat, but if the ice is darkened by soot from industry for example, it might not reflect as much heat as compared to pristine ice. that might be why there are claims that in the industrialized north ice is melting, while the less industrialized south, the polar ice is not.
> 
> Now, pointing out such possible factors is very very bad of me accroding to many. CO2 dummy, they will tell me .... ONLY co2 increase is contributing to warming. ONLY look at co2.
> 
> Why only co2? There is no reason why only co2. Its a faithful commitment to an unproven theory.
> 
> Too, you were given Roy Spencers theory as a possible alternative. You dismissed him without offering any scientific critique of his views. That's ignoring based on your faithful commitment to an unproven theory that warming is due to man made co2, and warming will continue unless co2 is reduced to pre-1950 levels.


This is fairly simple stuff. Most grade school students can tell you that black absorbs energy (and retains heat) and that white reflects it. You are arguing that scientists with pHDs and peer reviewed research are oblivious to it. Sorry Pluto, but that is not a serious scientific argument. 

No scientists asserts that CO2 is the only known greenhouse gas. CO2, CH4 and N2O are the greatest contributors to global warming and climate change but the list is long. 

I believe I have addresses Spencer's work previously. You continue to return to him as if he were somehow uniquely qualified. He is not. Our discussion needs to be expanded to the thousands of scientists who contribute to our understanding of climate. James E. Hansen, Michael E. Mann, Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Freeman Dyson (amazing scientist), Syukuro Manabe ... the list of scientists goes on into the thousands. We can't ignore these great men and only talk about your favorite denier.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Ah...so in 1977 Exxon, and only Exxon "knew" about climate change, but for some reason all the other scientists at the time "knew" about the upcoming ice age.
> 
> The reality is that Exxon simply stated in their report that they should be ready if the climate changed in the future. They did not know if there would be global warming, or an upcoming ice age, or if there would be any changes at all, but as good business people, they simply made plans in the event that things changed.


No, Exxon was not the only team who had the data. Exxon and other fossil fuel players had a business case to promote a disinformation campaign to create confusion in the mind of the public. Apparently, it worked, at least in your case.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> No, Exxon was not the only team who had the data. Exxon and other fossil fuel players had a business case to promote a disinformation campaign to create confusion in the mind of the public. Apparently, it worked, at least in your case.


So, what you're saying is that Exxon and some other unnamed oil companies knew more than all the climate scientists on Earth a full 20 years before they did.

Pardon my skepticism...


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> Fun fact: Exxon knew about Climate Change as far back as 1977 but they spent money trying to convince the public that Climate Change was not real.
> 
> *SciAm: Exxon Knew about Climate Change almost 40 years ago*
> 
> 
> 
> *The Climate Deception Dossiers (PDF)* reveals decades of intentional corporate disinformation by the fossil fuel industry.


Lots of people learned about climate change in elementry school for at least decades before 1977. They learned about ice ages and warmer periods. 
One thing I learned in recent years is that over many 100,000 of years when the warm periods came temperature went up before co2 went up, so obviously co2 didn't cause the rise. Exxon didn't discover that. For me, the biggest thing to make me reluctant to back man made global warming theory was the Jones Mann fiasco. So as far as I'm concerned, climate science did it to themselves.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> So, what you're saying is that Exxon and some other unnamed oil companies knew more than all the climate scientists on Earth a full 20 years before they did.


You misundersand. The science was widely known. Exxon's own scientists recognized that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was compelling but financial decision makers determined that it was more profitable to engage in a public misinformation campaign to sow doubt. Given that we're still debating it, despite the overwhelming evidence of man made climate change, I would say that the misinformation campaign was successful.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> Lots of people learned about climate change in elementry school for at least decades before 1977. They learned about ice ages and warmer periods.
> One thing I learned in recent years is that over many 100,000 of years when the warm periods came temperature went up before co2 went up, so obviously co2 didn't cause the rise. Exxon didn't discover that. For me, the biggest thing to make me reluctant to back man made global warming theory was the Jones Mann fiasco. So as far as I'm concerned, climate science did it to themselves.


We're talking about anthropogenic climate change. 

As I previously demonstrated, Jones and Mann were right all along.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> This is fairly simple stuff. Most grade school students can tell you that black absorbs energy (and retains heat) and that white reflects it. You are arguing that scientists with pHDs and peer reviewed research are oblivious to it. Sorry Pluto, but that is not a serious scientific argument.
> 
> No scientists asserts that CO2 is the only known greenhouse gas. CO2, CH4 and N2O are the greatest contributors to global warming and climate change but the list is long.
> 
> I believe I have addresses Spencer's work previously. You continue to return to him as if he were somehow uniquely qualified. He is not. Our discussion needs to be expanded to the thousands of scientists who contribute to our understanding of climate. James E. Hansen, Michael E. Mann, Richard Siegmund Lindzen, Freeman Dyson (amazing scientist), Syukuro Manabe ... the list of scientists goes on into the thousands. We can't ignore these great men and only talk about your favorite denier.


once again you offer no scientific reason to discount Spencer's theory which helps to prove the point that you are engaged in confirmation bias: you only look those who are going to tell you what you already believe. 
In the '70 I read a book, the Human Prospect, by Heilbrunner in which he was addamant that industrial heat was going to be a major problem. I believed him, despite the fact that around the same time Scientific American published an article claiming concern about a coming ice age. by the 1990's I became aware that I was engaged in confirmation bias, and decided to pay attention to differing perspectives. 
Once I did that, and vocalized differing perspectives I realized the main theory was an ideology with rigid supporters. It seems to me that the stages of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is playing out perfectly. during the rigid stage of a scientific revolution, anomolies, the phenomenon that doesn't fit the theory is shelved. It takes time for the rigid adherency to pass, and once it does, the anomolies may be looked at.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> We're talking about anthropogenic climate change.
> 
> As I previously demonstrated, Jones and Mann were right all along.


yes, I know we are talking about man made climate issues. that's why the obsession on co2 to the exclusion of other factors. 

Jones and Mann predicted the pause?


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> You misundersand. The science was widely known. Exxon's own scientists recognized that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change was compelling but financial decision makers determined that it was more profitable to engage in a public misinformation campaign to sow doubt. Given that we're still debating it, despite the overwhelming evidence of man made climate change, I would say that the misinformation campaign was successful.


Since when has the alarmist side ever debated? They simply spouted the ridiculous lie "The science is settled" because they refuse to debate knowing that facts will destroy them. Now, if you're looking for a real misinformation campaign...start with "the science is settled" lie. That's the biggest load of BS out there.

By the way, even the IPCC has cut ties with fraud Michael Mann.


----------



## m3s

It doesn't actually matter if climate change is hoax or not

Military leaders often have to make decisions without the luxury of having all "the facts"

The decision is whether to take significant action or to sit on our asses and complain about people who want to take action

The worst case of doing nothing is destroying the earth and the human race, and the best case is still a degraded environment to live in..

The worst case of doing something for nothing is that we make the world a better place when we could have sat on our asses

Climate change deniers should take a deep look in the mirror


----------



## bass player

m3s said:


> It doesn't actually matter if climate change is hoax or not


Actually, it does matter. Those who think otherwise are the ones who should take a deep look in the mirror.

By the way...all the money spent on fake climate change could have provided clean water, vaccines, and adequate food for the entire planet. Think about that while you're looking in the mirror.


----------



## sags

M3s..........post of the year.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> M3s..........post of the year.


Wrong again. That's a fake argument that alarmists have used for years and it means absolutely nothing, and fails all logical reasoning. Why not just trot out the 97% lie again?


----------



## sags

Whitecaps on the Interstate Highway in Houston. 

Increased storm intensity due to climate change has long been forecast by climate experts.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/harvey?f=tweets&vertical=news&src=hash


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> We're talking about anthropogenic climate change.


This seems to be in response to "over many 100,000 of years when the warm periods came temperature went up before co2 went up, so obviously co2 didn't cause the rise." I might add that with the increase in CO2 post temp increase, there wasn't any signficant rise in temperature. 
When you say we are talking about man made global warming, you seem to be saying that data is irrelevant because you aren't talking about natural warming, and you seem to imply that if co2 increased naturally it doesn't cause warming, but if it is co2 from human industry, it does cause warming. 

Also when you say we are talking about man made warming, that there actually is man made warming. the recent warming, say any warming since 1950 when apparently co2 broke above a range, could be natural warming, just like it was 100,000 of years ago. the fact that co2 is increasing due to industry could be just coincidence, not causal.


----------



## Pluto

m3s said:


> It doesn't actually matter if climate change is hoax or not
> 
> Military leaders often have to make decisions without the luxury of having all "the facts"
> 
> The decision is whether to take significant action or to sit on our asses and complain about people who want to take action
> 
> The worst case of doing nothing is destroying the earth and the human race, and the best case is still a degraded environment to live in..
> 
> The worst case of doing something for nothing is that we make the world a better place when we could have sat on our asses
> 
> Climate change deniers should take a deep look in the mirror


1. even if the goals of these climate agreements are met it won't make any significant difference to temperature. so even by taking action, it is the same as sitting on their asses, except that it is very expensive. 
2. France has shown the way to cleaner air. Unless there is some miracle breakthrough with solar technology, nuclear is the only clean air option. Many former anti nuclear activists have changed their tune while the other Greenies seem perfectly happy burning coal, an apparent major contributer to the problem. 
3. The facts are clear: if you want clean air soon, you have to go nuclear. If you are happy with pollution, keep burning coal. 
4. You imply that you are not sitting on you *** doing nothing about it, so what are you doing?


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> M3s..........post of the year.


OK. so implicitly you are not sitting on you *** either. What are you doing? Got a solar panel on your roof? Got a windmill in the yard? if not, why not?


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> once again you offer no scientific reason to discount Spencer's theory which helps to prove the point that you are engaged in confirmation bias: you only look those who are going to tell you what you already believe.
> In the '70 I read a book, the Human Prospect, by Heilbrunner in which he was addamant that industrial heat was going to be a major problem. I believed him, despite the fact that around the same time Scientific American published an article claiming concern about a coming ice age. by the 1990's I became aware that I was engaged in confirmation bias, and decided to pay attention to differing perspectives.
> Once I did that, and vocalized differing perspectives I realized the main theory was an ideology with rigid supporters. It seems to me that the stages of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions is playing out perfectly. during the rigid stage of a scientific revolution, anomolies, the phenomenon that doesn't fit the theory is shelved. It takes time for the rigid adherency to pass, and once it does, the anomolies may be looked at.


You have presented an erroneous interpretation of Kuhn's structure. He never said that phenomenon that doesn't fit the theory is shelved. New paradigms may be resisted by established communities and Kohn proposed an elegant solution. Theoretical scientists who propose novel new theories must present a theory that can be tested by experimentation. He illustrates his concepts with, among others, Copernicus. 

Every time you have repeated one of Spencer's talking points, I have demonstrated the error of it with links and references. It isn't reasonable for you to insist that we talk only about Spencer's work while ignoring the work of thousands of other scientists. 



Pluto said:


> yes, I know we are talking about man made climate issues. that's why the obsession on co2 to the exclusion of other factors.


As I said above, it is more than just CO2 but it is the most abundant GHG coming from the industrialized world and the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect. 



Pluto said:


> Jones and Mann predicted the pause?


There was no pause (or hiatus). Measurements in the upper atmosphere demonstrated that the Earth continued to receive more energy than it radiated. The Earth continued to warm with some excess energy going into the atmosphere and some going into the oceans. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/study-global-warming-hiatus-attributed-redistribution



Pluto said:


> When you say we are talking about man made global warming, you seem to be saying that data is irrelevant because you aren't talking about natural warming, and you seem to imply that if co2 increased naturally it doesn't cause warming, but if it is co2 from human industry, it does cause warming.


I'm saying no such thing.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> 2. France has shown the way to cleaner air. Unless there is some miracle breakthrough with solar technology, nuclear is the only clean air option. Many former anti nuclear activists have changed their tune while the other Greenies seem perfectly happy burning coal, an apparent major contributer to the problem.
> 3. The facts are clear: if you want clean air soon, you have to go nuclear. If you are happy with pollution, keep burning coal.


If only it were so simple. 

Fun starts at 0:44


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> You have presented an erroneous interpretation of Kuhn's structure. He never said that phenomenon that doesn't fit the theory is shelved. New paradigms may be resisted by established communities and Kohn proposed an elegant solution. Theoretical scientists who propose novel new theories must present a theory that can be tested by experimentation. He illustrates his concepts with, among others, Copernicus.
> 
> Every time you have repeated one of Spencer's talking points, I have demonstrated the error of it with links and references. It isn't reasonable for you to insist that we talk only about Spencer's work while ignoring the work of thousands of other scientists.
> 
> 
> As I said above, it is more than just CO2 but it is the most abundant GHG coming from the industrialized world and the greatest contributor to the greenhouse effect.
> 
> 
> There was no pause (or hiatus). Measurements in the upper atmosphere demonstrated that the Earth continued to receive more energy than it radiated. The Earth continued to warm with some excess energy going into the atmosphere and some going into the oceans. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/study-global-warming-hiatus-attributed-redistribution
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying no such thing.


1. Kuhn: You wrote, "Theoretical scientists who propose novel new theories must present a theory that can be tested by experimentation." Give me a page number where he wrote that. 
2. No pause or hiatus: Well perviously global warming theorists accepted the pause saying you don't throw out a theory just because of the pause. Now we have a revision. the heat is in the ocean, not in the atmosphere. I'm not sure why this wasn't happening all along. Suddenly in 1998 onward, the ocean absorbs the heat, so it doesn't show up in the atmosphere measurements. What model predicted that? None as far as I know. 
3. Some scientists aquired data going back some hundreds of thousand of years. Apparently the data showed significant warming. It also showed significant co2 increases after, not before the warming. This was a surprise result. In his first movie Al Gore dealt with the surprise result by noteing the rise in temp, and noteing the rise in co2, but omitting the fact that the rise in co2 came after the temp rise. The reason he did that is obvious. The model he and others have committed to, see it as a problem that their model could not assimilate. the way he deals with it is to pretend it isn't there. He ignores it. Similarily, you claim it is irrelevant. Don't you want to know if the warming in our life time is just natural vs man made? In order to know how much is man made, and how much is natural, climate science needs a deeper understaning that it currently has. 

5. coal vs nuclear: this is a matter of values. Nuclear offers clean air production and the waste in our posession. Pluse the waste can be rerefined and used again, (but in US that is illegal so it has to be stored as is. Storage methods are however, very safe. Coal offers dirty air and much of the waste out of our control as it goes up the smoke stack - some of what goes up the smoke stack is radio active particles. Why would one want the radio active particles out of our posession rather than in our posession? coal also contributes to, some say, co2 produced global warming. Even so, being anti nuke is preferable stopping global warming. Since anti nuclear is preferable to stopping global warming, the threat of global warming is exagerated. Wind is limited to windy areas, and solar, although improving, is still not ready for prime time. So you pick air polution and global warming over nuclear power. That's a value judgement.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> 1. Kuhn: You wrote, "Theoretical scientists who propose novel new theories must present a theory that can be tested by experimentation." Give me a page number where he wrote that.
> 2. No pause or hiatus: Well perviously global warming theorists accepted the pause saying you don't throw out a theory just because of the pause. Now we have a revision. the heat is in the ocean, not in the atmosphere. I'm not sure why this wasn't happening all along. Suddenly in 1998 onward, the ocean absorbs the heat, so it doesn't show up in the atmosphere measurements. What model predicted that? None as far as I know.
> 3. Some scientists aquired data going back some hundreds of thousand of years. Apparently the data showed significant warming. It also showed significant co2 increases after, not before the warming. This was a surprise result. In his first movie Al Gore dealt with the surprise result by noteing the rise in temp, and noteing the rise in co2, but omitting the fact that the rise in co2 came after the temp rise. The reason he did that is obvious. The model he and others have committed to, see it as a problem that their model could not assimilate. the way he deals with it is to pretend it isn't there. He ignores it. Similarily, you claim it is irrelevant. Don't you want to know if the warming in our life time is just natural vs man made? In order to know how much is man made, and how much is natural, climate science needs a deeper understaning that it currently has.
> 
> 5. coal vs nuclear: this is a matter of values. Nuclear offers clean air production and the waste in our posession. Pluse the waste can be rerefined and used again, (but in US that is illegal so it has to be stored as is. Storage methods are however, very safe. Coal offers dirty air and much of the waste out of our control as it goes up the smoke stack - some of what goes up the smoke stack is radio active particles. Why would one want the radio active particles out of our posession rather than in our posession? coal also contributes to, some say, co2 produced global warming. Even so, being anti nuke is preferable stopping global warming. Since anti nuclear is preferable to stopping global warming, the threat of global warming is exagerated. Wind is limited to windy areas, and solar, although improving, is still not ready for prime time. So you pick air polution and global warming over nuclear power. That's a value judgement.


1. Kuhn: When you show me a page where Kuhn said "_during the rigid stage of a scientific revolution, anomolies, the phenomenon that doesn't fit the theory is shelved_" I'll give you one of many pages in which Kuhn talked about the relationship between the theoretical and the practical. I believe you are on an unproductive tangent here. 

2. What you are attempting to do is use the refinement of science to undermine it. You could use the same argument to undermine classical mechanics. (Indeed, bass kinda tried but he appeared to be somewhat confused about the relationship between relativistic and classical mechanics). 

3. Links , proof? 

5. It is not just between nuclear and coal. There is natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal and so on. It makes no sense to argue that concern about global warming requires one to become an unquestioning proponent of nuclear fission reactors? I used to be in favour of nuclear fission but the waste problem pushed me onto the fence. 40 years of experience suggest that we haven't figured out how to deal with the waste. 

You suggested that nuclear waste can be refined and used again. It is not that simple. Many believe that reprocessing is expensive, dirty and dangerous. Congress banned it in the US. Different nuclear fission plant used different technology and fission reactions so one can't argue that reprocessing is always possible. 

Nuclear is marred by the memory of Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daichi, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, and SL-1. Good luck overcoming NIMBY objections.

Meanwhile, the viability of wind, solar, hydrothermal and the associated storage technologies continue has improved to the point of economic viability.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Meanwhile, the viability of wind, solar, hydrothermal and the associated storage technologies continue has improved to the point of economic viability.


Why do wind and solar require massive subsidies if they're economically viable? Once again, you simply repeat the green talking points with no regard to accuracy or facts.


----------



## sags

Estimates are that Hurricane Harvey damage will cost $75 to $100 billion dollars. It will affect the overall US budget. Climate change cannot be ignored.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Estimates are that Hurricane Harvey damage will cost $75 to $100 billion dollars. It will affect the overall US budget. Climate change cannot be ignored.


Repeating the lie that the hurricane was caused by climate change over and over doesn't make it fact.

But, if it was a fact, then it's also a fact that the 12 full years prior to Harvey, which was the longest period of time in recorded history in the US where a hurricane never made landfall must also be the result of climate change. 

How many billions were saved over the last 12 years? How many more billions will be saved if another 12 or maybe 20 years goes by before another hurricane makes landfall? How much will be saved over the next 100 years? Potentially trillions will be saved.


----------



## new dog

I have to agree with bass here. A hurricane happened and it has happened before many times in the last century hitting different spots and so on. So it is a big stretch to claim a hurricane is because of climate change.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Estimates are that Hurricane Harvey damage will cost $75 to $100 billion dollars. It will affect the overall US budget. Climate change cannot be ignored.


Ohhh, please spare us that connection.

ltr


----------



## bass player

Was it climate change in the 1930's?? This is from NOAA:

"The 1931 to 1935 hurricane seasons were part of an active period for the continental United States, as it was struck by twelve hurricanes (eleven previously listed in HURDAT). Of these twelve, four were major hurricanes (five previously listed in HURDAT): a Category 4 hurricane in Texas in 1932, a Category 3 hurricane in Texas in 1933, a Category 3 hurricane in Florida also in 1933, and a Category 5 hurricane in Florida in 1935.. *This last hurricane, known as the "Labor Day Hurricane" because of its landfall on that date in September, was the strongest hurricane to ever make landfall in the United States*, based upon its central pressure of 892 mb. The maximum sustained wind at landfall in the Florida Keys is estimated to have been around 185 mph. This is second only to the 190 mph sustained wind currently listed for 1969's Hurricane Camille at landfall. 408 people were killed by the "Labor Day Hurricane", which is the eighth most deadly in continental United States history."

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/news/20120507_pa_reanalysis1935.pdf

Interestingly, all the alarmists are either unaware of all the hurricanes in the 1930's, including the strongest one in recorded history, or (and more likely) they deliberately chose to ignore what happened because it weakens their already weak argument.


----------



## sags

Fewer hurricanes on the US but lots of powerful typhoons and cyclones around the world. Droughts and forest fires caused by droughts are also more frequent and intense.

Recovery is still underway from Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. No country can afford to continually rebuild the same over and over.

$100 Billion more to be spent just to get back to where they were last Thursday ?

Most scientists and world governments now recognize that climate change is real and must be addressed. The US stands almost alone in their denial with Trump as President.


----------



## bass player

sags said:


> Fewer hurricanes on the US but lots of powerful typhoons and cyclones around the world. Droughts and forest fires caused by droughts are also more frequent and intense.


So, after proof from NOAA that you and all those who preach warming have ignored for the last two decades, you now come up with another line of BS to try to prove you point. Instead of feeding us more BS, why don't you apologize for your lies (or for being completely uninformed) and promise us that you'll deal with just the facts in the future?



> Recovery is still underway from Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. No country can afford to continually rebuild the same over and over.


Maybe, maybe not. But that has nothing to do with climate change, or the lack of it. It's a social and political decision.



> Most scientists and world governments now recognize that climate change is real and must be addressed.


That lie has been debunked dozens of times.


----------



## like_to_retire

sags said:


> Fewer hurricanes on the US but lots of powerful typhoons and cyclones around the world.


But wait a second. Where's the proof that climate change has anything to do with Hurricane Harvey as you just previously claimed?

Sags, you're a smart guy, stop this nonsense.

ltr


----------



## Eder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult


----------



## bass player

Climate change...dead last in a UN survey of 9.7 million people:

http://data.myworld2015.org/


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> 3. Links , proof?
> 
> 5. It is not just between nuclear and coal. There is natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal and so on. It makes no sense to argue that concern about global warming requires one to become an unquestioning proponent of nuclear fission reactors? I used to be in favour of nuclear fission but the waste problem pushed me onto the fence. 40 years of experience suggest that we haven't figured out how to deal with the waste.
> 
> You suggested that nuclear waste can be refined and used again. It is not that simple. Many believe that reprocessing is expensive, dirty and dangerous. Congress banned it in the US. Different nuclear fission plant used different technology and fission reactions so one can't argue that reprocessing is always possible.
> 
> Nuclear is marred by the memory of Three Mile Island, Fukushima Daichi, Chernobyl, Kyshtym, and SL-1. Good luck overcoming NIMBY objections.
> 
> Meanwhile, the viability of wind, solar, hydrothermal and the associated storage technologies continue has improved to the point of economic viability.


3. There should be an attached graph of temps rising prior to co2. Origionally scientists said there was about an 800 year lag between temp rise and co2 rise. But some scientists later thought the lag was 200 years. Al Gore used this in his first movie showing the temp rise and co2 rise but failed to say temp was first therby allowing many viewers to draw false conclusions. You would have to watch his movie again to verify. Anyway, I fail to see how his manipulation is a refinment of science. And clearly his model of climate doesn't fit the data, he tried to hide that, and that implies something at work here that is not about scientific understaning. 
5. Nat gas produces co2. I doubt that hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal can replace coal. Germany, some years ago, made considerable effort to go green. Commendable, and a concrete example of why alternatives are not peresnlty going to work as a substitue for nuclear or coal. Some Greenpeace reps claimed to me verbally that Germany had gone totally green with solar and wind. Upon checking I discovered 1. their solar and wind contributed about 3% of total usage 2. Germany then abandoned any further expansion of solar and wind as being too impractical. 4. Instead, in order to avoid nuclear, they committed to building untold numbers of coal fired plants. I suspect if geothermal was practical, they would have chosen that. So they went from saving the planet to planet killing technology. More recently Germany and China have retracted their plans to rely on coal. it remains to be seen what avenue they will take. In short, I don't buy the view that it doesn't come down to coal or nuclear. I'm guessing that Germany may just buy more nuclear from France.

One needs to log in and click on the attachment to get large version.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Repeating the lie that the hurricane was caused by climate change over and over doesn't make it fact.


Contradiction without proof. Interesting debate strategy.


----------



## sags

It doesn't matter to climate change if people accept it or not.


----------



## olivaw

sags said:


> Estimates are that Hurricane Harvey damage will cost $75 to $100 billion dollars. It will affect the overall US budget. Climate change cannot be ignored.


BBC explores the connection between climate change and Hurricane Harvey in *Hurricane Harvey: The link to climate change*



> *Hurricanes are complex, naturally occurring beasts - extremely difficult to predict, with or without the backdrop of rising global temperatures*.
> 
> The scientific reality of attributing a role to climate change in worsening the impact of hurricanes is also hard to tease out simply because these are fairly rare events and there is not a huge amount of historical data.
> 
> But there are some things that we can say with a good deal of certainty.
> 
> There's a well-established physical law, the Clausius-Clapeyron equation, that says that a hotter atmosphere holds more moisture.
> 
> For every extra degree Celsius in warming, the atmosphere can hold 7% more water. This tends to make rainfall events even more extreme when they occur.
> 
> Another element that we can mention with some confidence is the temperature of the seas.
> 
> "The waters of the Gulf of Mexico are about 1.5 degrees warmer above what they were from 1980-2010," Sir Brian Hoskins from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Fewer hurricanes on the US but lots of powerful typhoons and cyclones around the world. Droughts and forest fires caused by droughts are also more frequent and intense.
> 
> Recovery is still underway from Hurricane Sandy and Katrina. No country can afford to continually rebuild the same over and over.
> 
> $100 Billion more to be spent just to get back to where they were last Thursday ?
> 
> Most scientists and world governments now recognize that climate change is real and must be addressed. The US stands almost alone in their denial with Trump as President.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/page/3/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/


----------



## sags

Hurricane Harvey has been so damaging because it stalled in place for days, and has reversed into the Gulf to power back up and come ashore 3 times.

Climate scientists say the "stalling" is caused by the change in global wind patterns, just as summer droughts and heat waves have remained in place for long periods of time.


----------



## bass player

"Sir Brian Hoskins from the Grantham Institute for Climate Change"

He's biased. His entire livelihood is based on the assumption that global warming is real.


----------



## sags

Dr. Spencer is wrong that there is nothing we can or should do. 

Even if it was impossible to do anything about climate change itself, it is imperative we do everything we can to mitigate the negative effects.

Some of the tasks are easy.........restrict building in floodplain areas. Broaden and deepen reservoirs. 

Climate change denial allowed the building in Houston surrounding the reservoirs. The ranch land that used to absorb excess water is now covered in development increasing runoff.

Climate change denial gives a cover of legitimacy to those who profit by doing nothing.

Political leaders need to ask themselves......if climate change is real should we be moving people out of low lying areas and coastal cities.

At the very least the question should be asked..........should we spend $100 Billion dollars to re-build in the same place again.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> Why do wind and solar require massive subsidies if they're economically viable? Once again, you simply repeat the green talking points with no regard to accuracy or facts.


Why do fossil fuels receive subsidies if they're economically viable? Once again, you simply repeat the denier talking points with no regard to accuracy or facts. 

Bass, the thing I have included below is called a *link*. The other is called a *quote*. You should try it. Never know what you might learn while you research. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies



> Global fossil fuel subsidies represented 6.5% of global GDP in 2015


----------



## sags

It is reported that a chemical plant in Houston is in danger of immediate explosion.

We build nuclear plants, chemical plants and refineries on low lying ground by the water's edge. 

We aren't as smart as we think we are.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Bass, the thing I have included below is called a *link*. The other is called a *quote*. You should try it. Never know what you might learn while you research.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies


You're right... 

From that link:

"On March 13, 2013, Terry M. Dinan, senior advisor at the Congressional Budget Office, testified before the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the U.S. House of Representatives that federal energy tax subsidies would cost $16.4 billion that fiscal year, broken down as follows:

Renewable energy: $7.3 billion (45 percent)
Energy efficiency: $4.8 billion (29 percent)
Fossil fuels: $3.2 billion (20 percent)
Nuclear energy: $1.1 billion (7 percent)

So...renewable energy in the US received more than double the subsidies that fossil fuels received. And, yet they only produced a very small percentage of the amount of energy that fossil fuels produced.

I was right. Again.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> I was right. Again.


You think? You suggested that fossil subsidies were zero. Now you know they are not. 

Are you aware that the fossil fuel infrastructure (like the US auto industry) was built with subsidies throughout the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and this decade? Why are we still funnelling money into an industry that creates global warming and pumps poisonous chemicals into the air? Seems dumb 

Are you aware that it is not economically viable to build refineries in Alberta to processing our bitumen? Are you aware that there are thousands of orphaned wells in Alberta that need to be cleaned up. The government will probably end up paying billions of dollars to clean up after the oil companies. 

The structure for wind and solar are relatively new and is still being built out. The type of investment involved is drop in the bucket compared to the money that has gone into he fossil fuels infrastructure. 

Which brings us full circle to the original point. The economics of wind and solar continue to improve to the point that they are viable sources of energy. Costs continue to decline. It would be silly, not to invest in them.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> You think? You suggested that fossil subsidies were zero. Now you know they are not.


I never once suggested that they were zero. I did state that solar and wind get massive subsidies, which is entirely accurate.



> Are you aware that the fossil fuel infrastructure (like the US auto industry) was built with subsidies throughout the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s and this decade? Why are we still funnelling money into an industry that creates global warming and pumps poisonous chemicals into the air? Seems dumb


Most of the subsidies are really just tax breaks that all large businesses receive. Electric cars have been around as long as gas powered cars. Windmills existed long before electricity was ever invented, yet both get subsidies. Seems dumb.

Prior to automobiles, people used animals to perform work and for transportation. Shall we go back to that and then give up 30% or 40% of the planet's food supply to feed these animals? What about the massive amount of animal waste that would have to be cleaned up and dealt with? New York city had a 100,000 horses at one time...each of them creating 20 - 30 pounds of waste every day. Automobiles solved a problem, they didn't create one:

"In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced nearly 1,200 metric tons of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. In addition, each horse produces nearly a litre of urine per day, which also ended up on the streets. :

The problems:

Consider the following:
·******** The manure spread disease.
·******** It attracted large numbers of flies.
·******** In the summer, it dried and turned to dust, being blown by the wind onto people and coating buildings.
·******** In wet weather it turned into mire.
·******** The manure smelled offensive.
·******** In some places the manure was so thick on the ground that professional manure removers at intersections – including “crossing sweepers” in the US and “sparrow starvers” in Sydney –* provided a paid service of clearing paths for women in long dresses to cross the street.
·******** Horse accidents were common.* Fatality rates according to population were higher for horse drawn vehicles than in today’s motor vehicle society."

http://bytesdaily.blogspot.ca/2011/07/great-horse-manure-crisis-of-1894.html




> Are you aware that it is not economically viable to build refineries in Alberta to processing our bitumen? Are you aware that there are thousands of orphaned wells in Alberta that need to be cleaned up. The government will probably end up paying billions of dollars to clean up after the oil companies.


Take a look at some of the mining practices in China where the rare earth metals come from for wind turbines. Battery production isn't very green either



> The structure for wind and solar are relatively new and is still being built out. The type of investment involved is drop in the bucket compared to the money that has gone into he fossil fuels infrastructure.


By "relatively new", if you mean decades, then I would agree. And, of course there was more investment into fossil fuel infrastructure, they are what make modern living possible, and the vast majority of the population wanted and embraced automobiles.



> Which brings us full circle to the original point. The economics of wind and solar continue to improve to the point that they are viable sources of energy. Costs continue to decline. It would be silly, not to invest in them.


As I stated, if they are economically viable, then lower the tax breaks and subsidies to the same level fossil fuel receive.


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> As I stated, if they are economically viable, then lower the tax breaks and subsidies to the same level fossil fuel receive.


Your point has changed. Your revised argument is also wrong. Solar and wind are economically viable. 

http://www.engineering.com/Electron.../Is-Renewable-Energy-Economically-Viable.aspx



> The study showed that in all three scenarios, there are long-term economic benefits to adding renewable energy to the grid. This is true for every region of the continental US, with different renewable sources favored in certain areas. In scenario 1 (LACE/LCOE only), there’s a potential for an additional 3200 to 7100 TWh of annual generation from renewable sources. (In other words, adding that much capacity in renewables would be economically feasible.) In scenario 2 (LACE/LCOE + hidden costs), the outlook is much more optimistic for renewables: 13,000 to 42,000 TWh per year. But factoring in the declining value of renewables at high market penetration (scenario 3), a more realistic outlook shows an economic viability for 1500 to 2000 TWh per year of additional renewable capacity.


----------



## sags

When the mammoth oil companies stop funding fossil fuel development, which has already started..........it is a sign of the times.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> Hurricane Harvey has been so damaging because it stalled in place for days, and has reversed into the Gulf to power back up and come ashore 3 times.
> 
> Climate scientists say the "stalling" is caused by the change in global wind patterns, just as summer droughts and heat waves have remained in place for long periods of time.


So what? global wind patterns have always been in flux. 
I don't get the thing that climate change causes climate change. Its a meaningless statement. A Tautology - Look that up in your Funk and Wagnalls.


----------



## Pluto

sags said:


> When the mammoth oil companies stop funding fossil fuel development, which has already started..........it is a sign of the times.


Organic chemistry is carbon based. Life is based on carbon. 65 million years ago, when it was much warmer, the planet was teaming with life and biodiversity. The cooling since then has indicated a dying planet. maybe not enough co2 to sustain the bio diversity. 

I don't get the assumption that we must prevent the earth from warming in order to prevent tipping into greater bio diversity, flouishing life, and a healthier planet.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> Your point has changed. Your revised argument is also wrong. Solar and wind are economically viable.


What revised argument? I said wind and solar are heavily subsidized. That's a fact. A study that claims that they are economically viable doesn't change the fact that they are heavily subsidized.


----------



## bass player

Pluto said:


> I don't get the assumption that we must prevent the earth from warming in order to prevent tipping into greater bio diversity, flouishing life, and a healthier planet.


Because that's the only assumption that they can use to sell a "carbon" tax. They can't tax potential cooling or the sun, so they have to come up with a doomsday scenario that involves something that can be taxed. By calling CO2 "carbon", they now have a way to tax everything. 

It doesn't matter if more CO2 helps the planet, or that some warming helps the planet. Those things have never mattered, and in fact, have to be ignored or downplayed for their agenda to work.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Organic chemistry is carbon based. Life is based on carbon. 65 million years ago, when it was much warmer, the planet was teaming with life and biodiversity. The cooling since then has indicated a dying planet. maybe not enough co2 to sustain the bio diversity.
> 
> I don't get the assumption that we must prevent the earth from warming in order to prevent tipping into greater bio diversity, flouishing life, and a healthier planet.


Not sure there is good evidence for a fall in biodiversity due to reduced global temps/CO2. Humans have had a huge impact of biodiversity, especially in megafauna.


----------



## andrewf

bass player said:


> Because that's the only assumption that they can use to sell a "carbon" tax. They can't tax potential cooling or the sun, so they have to come up with a doomsday scenario that involves something that can be taxed. By calling CO2 "carbon", they now have a way to tax everything.
> 
> It doesn't matter if more CO2 helps the planet, or that some warming helps the planet. Those things have never mattered, and in fact, have to be ignored or downplayed for their agenda to work.


Air pollution, primarily due to fossil fuels, causes hundreds of thousands of deaths per year in the US. It's like a 9/11 of deaths every week. Kills more people than automobile accidents by a good margin.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Organic chemistry is carbon based.


Sulfur is essential to human life. Ergo, 18 molar sulfuric acid is benign? This is a facile argument that saps your credibility.

There is some level of CO2 that is undesirable, beyond which excess CO2 or other greenhouse gases should be viewed as undesirable pollutants. Evidence is Venus, which has so much CO2 that surface temperatures can melt lead. You absolutely cannot deny any of this. Therefore, we must then determine what level of CO2 concentration is the maximum desirable level.


----------



## Pluto

seeing is believeing: 


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Sulfur is essential to human life. Ergo, 18 molar sulfuric acid is benign? This is a facile argument that saps your credibility.
> 
> There is some level of CO2 that is undesirable, beyond which excess CO2 or other greenhouse gases should be viewed as undesirable pollutants. Evidence is Venus, which has so much CO2 that surface temperatures can melt lead. You absolutely cannot deny any of this. Therefore, we must then determine what level of CO2 concentration is the maximum desirable level.


how much is excess? What the right amount? There is almot no co2 in the atmosphere now. In the past it has been much higher. Plus the globe is historically cooler now than in the past. Way warmer 65 million years ago with there were way more species. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Sulfur is essential to human life. Ergo, 18 molar sulfuric acid is benign? This is a facile argument that saps your credibility.
> 
> There is some level of CO2 that is undesirable, beyond which excess CO2 or other greenhouse gases should be viewed as undesirable pollutants. Evidence is Venus, which has so much CO2 that surface temperatures can melt lead. You absolutely cannot deny any of this. Therefore, we must then determine what level of CO2 concentration is the maximum desirable level.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Not sure there is good evidence for a fall in biodiversity due to reduced global temps/CO2. Humans have had a huge impact of biodiversity, especially in megafauna.


Why aren't you sure? Do you think that when a mile of ice covered much of North America that life just continued as if it wasn't there... 

Just how gullible are you?


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Not sure there is good evidence for a fall in biodiversity due to reduced global temps/CO2. Humans have had a huge impact of biodiversity, especially in megafauna.


Some 90% of all species went extinct before humans ever existed. It was warmer back then. It is relatively cold now. 
Plant life and warmth is needed for bio diversity. More co2 is needed to promote plant growth, which in turn supports animal life... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Some 90% of all species went extinct before humans ever existed. It was warmer back then. It is relatively cold now.
> Plant life and warmth is needed for bio diversity. More co2 is needed to promote plant growth, which in turn supports animal life...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE


That 90% did not exist all at the same time. And it's a wild thumb-suck. We have no idea how many species of bacteria there are, we're probably undercounting.


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Some 90% of all species went extinct before humans ever existed. It was warmer back then. It is relatively cold now.
> Plant life and warmth is needed for bio diversity. More co2 is needed to promote plant growth, which in turn supports animal life...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE


Higher CO2 and higher temps also mean higher sea levels. Are we on board with flooding the majority of the world's major cities? Faster the better?


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Higher CO2 and higher temps also mean higher sea levels. Are we on board with flooding the majority of the world's major cities? Faster the better?


Sell/give all the ocean property to the deniers...the alarmists can move inland. It's a win/win


----------



## andrewf

It's cognitive dissonance to argue for higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temps, then also deny that CO2 causes higher temps.


----------



## new dog

Striving to get rid of waste and using fossil fuels is a good goal to have in general and not because of climate change. North America should do this on its own without some stupid agreements that let countries off the hook and having Europe scold us and tell us what to do. Instead climate change is a way to develop new tax strategies and find ways to control the agenda so certain people can get rich as always.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> It's cognitive dissonance to argue for higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temps, then also deny that CO2 causes higher temps.


Do you understand the logarithmic effect of CO2 on temperature?


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> It's cognitive dissonance to argue for higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temps, then also deny that CO2 causes higher temps.


I don't deny co2 can cause higher temps. There is no proof that is it as sensitive as alarmists claim. And there is no proof that higher temps will destroy the planet.

The attachment shows planet is much cooler now than 65 mil years ago when there was significantly more diversity of plants and animals. Check the fossil record. Some 90% of plants and animals went extinct. So it is hard to argue that warmer temps from now will destroy life and damage biodiversity.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Higher CO2 and higher temps also mean higher sea levels. Are we on board with flooding the majority of the world's major cities? Faster the better?


Major cities? That's pretty human centered. I thought environmentalists were planet centered and bio-diversity centered. Now it seems some truth comes out - its about realestate values, and what's convenient for humans, bio-diversity be dammed. 

Humans and other animals will do what they always did in the face of climate change. Ice ages caused them to move to warmer areas. When ice ages ended humans and other animals populations expanded, plant life exploded, and they moved into new territory. So what's the big deal with some warming?


----------



## bass player

Cold is far more deadly to life on Earth.

Imagine the havoc another mini-ice age (or worse) would cause. Didn't Boston got 8(?) feet of snow a couple winters ago? What if they got 15 or 20? What if the growing seasons across the planet got 10% or 15% shorter?


----------



## andrewf

Pluto said:


> Major cities? That's pretty human centered. I thought environmentalists were planet centered and bio-diversity centered. Now it seems some truth comes out - its about realestate values, and what's convenient for humans, bio-diversity be dammed.
> 
> Humans and other animals will do what they always did in the face of climate change. Ice ages caused them to move to warmer areas. When ice ages ended humans and other animals populations expanded, plant life exploded, and they moved into new territory. So what's the big deal with some warming?


Your whole argument against CO2 reduction strategies is economic. Drowning 2/3rds of global major cities is going to cost tens of trillions of dollars.


----------



## bass player

andrewf said:


> Your whole argument against CO2 reduction strategies is economic. Drowning 2/3rds of global major cities is going to cost tens of trillions of dollars.


The sea level has been rising at the same pace for hundreds of years...roughly 7 inches per century or 171 years to rise a foot. There is no need to panic...no one will drown.

It's very simple and easily achievable. Ban all further construction within XX feet of sea level. As existing buildings age, don't undertake major renovations if they are too low. Encourage construction on higher ground, and gear future infrastructure towards higher land. Gradually move the city higher.

If a city is 2 feet above sea level, they have over 300 years to accomplish this. If they are 6 feet above sea level, they have 1000 years.


----------



## Pluto

andrewf said:


> Your whole argument against CO2 reduction strategies is economic. Drowning 2/3rds of global major cities is going to cost tens of trillions of dollars.


part of the arguement is the goals set in Paris will make no difference, yet is costly. Why not spend where it makes a difference such as treating disease, and disease prevention?


----------



## olivaw

bass player said:


> What revised argument? I said wind and solar are heavily subsidized. That's a fact. A study that claims that they are economically viable doesn't change the fact that they are heavily subsidized.


_My_ point, the one that started our discussion, was that wind and solar are economically viable. The scholarly article that I linked demonstrates that they are economically viable.


----------



## bass player

olivaw said:


> _My_ point, the one that started our discussion, was that wind and solar are economically viable. The scholarly article that I linked demonstrates that they are economically viable.


If that's really true, then the subsidies need to end.


----------



## Pluto

olivaw said:


> _My_ point, the one that started our discussion, was that wind and solar are economically viable. The scholarly article that I linked demonstrates that they are economically viable.


http://www.engineering.com/Electron.../Is-Renewable-Energy-Economically-Viable.aspx

They didn't actually do an economic analysis:- 
"Professor MacKay is a physicist, not an economist. When asked about economic factors, he simply pointed out that we spend a lot of money on various projects of dubious benefit, so if we are serious about climate change and energy security, we’ll find the money."

What does that mean? 

Upon reading the article large amonts of power is economically viable if, under scenario 2(see the article), Hidden costs such as co2 emmisions, are added to traditional sources of energy. 

That raises a red flag for me. How do they calculate the cost of co2 emissions? its a value judgement that co2 emmisions are bad. For example increased plant growth is to me a benifit of increased co2. But they apparently do not include that in their study. They pick and choose whatever is convenient for their perspective.


----------



## Pluto

*Greenland gaining snow this summer - very unusual*

it might make some feel better to know Greenland has had tremendous snow fall this summer, apparently negating much of the recent melting. 
I suppose if the Vikings would ave arrived about now, they may have not stayed as the climate is too bad. 

If you google Greenland snowfall summer 2017, you won't find too many article headlines stating the facts. Rather you will find headlines stating the opposite. This, I suppose is a tactic designed to manipulate the headline only readers. In order to get the truth, you have to dig deeper, which a lot of people don't do. If the science is settled, why do they resort to such manipulations?


----------



## s1231

Pluto said:


> part of the arguement is the goals set in Paris will make no difference, yet is costly. Why not spend where it makes a difference such as treating disease, and disease prevention?



The result is showed restoration works! It made their life much better. (food securities, secure the energies etc) It probably made their health improved on better foods & environment.

(Source) --- Green Gold - Documentary by John D. Liu: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLZmwlPa8A

"It's possible to rehabilitate large-scale damaged ecosystems." Environmental film maker John D. Liu documents large-scale ecosystem restoration projects in China, Africa, South America and the Middle East, highlighting the enormous benefits for people and planet of undertaking these efforts globally.


----------



## olivaw

Pluto said:


> http://www.engineering.com/Electron.../Is-Renewable-Energy-Economically-Viable.aspx
> 
> They didn't actually do an economic analysis:-
> "Professor MacKay is a physicist, not an economist. When asked about economic factors, he simply pointed out that we spend a lot of money on various projects of dubious benefit, so if we are serious about climate change and energy security, we’ll find the money."
> 
> *What does that mean? *


The article is titled: *Is Renewable Energy Economically Viable?* It referenced two studies: Dr. MacKay's *technical potential analysis* and *an analysis of the economic potential by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory*. 



Pluto said:


> Upon reading the article large amonts of power is economically viable if, under scenario 2(see the article), Hidden costs such as co2 emmisions, are added to traditional sources of energy.
> 
> That raises a red flag for me. How do they calculate the cost of co2 emissions? its a value judgement that co2 emmisions are bad. For example increased plant growth is to me a benifit of increased co2. But they apparently do not include that in their study. They pick and choose whatever is convenient for their perspective.


The paper demonstrated that these energy sources were viable, even when hidden costs were excluded. 

_"The study showed that in all three scenarios, there are long-term economic benefits to adding renewable energy to the grid. This is true for every region of the continental US, with different renewable sources favored in certain areas. In scenario 1 (LACE/LCOE only), there’s a potential for an additional 3200 to 7100 TWh of annual generation from renewable sources. (In other words, adding that much capacity in renewables would be economically feasible.) In scenario 2 (LACE/LCOE + hidden costs), the outlook is much more optimistic for renewables: 13,000 to 42,000 TWh per year. But factoring in the declining value of renewables at high market penetration (scenario 3), a more realistic outlook shows an economic viability for 1500 to 2000 TWh per year of additional renewable capacity."_

I


----------



## bass player

And the green math BS continues. Please explain these magical economic benefits.

Virtually ALL of the economic benefits so far have been energy prices much higher than normal. How does that benefit anyone other than those who sell renewable energy? Using the same logic, raising grocery prices also provides an "economic benefit"... 

Is there any renewable energy that lowers heating or cooling costs?
How does paying more to heat or cool your home provide an economic benefit to anyone?


----------



## Eder

Lets face it, renewable, nuclear, and conventional power including coal are all desirable to continue to develop and improve and I'm pretty sure this will be the case. 

It won't be long before SAGD extraction processes will be greener than non ethical oil sources and we should put a sticker on all Albertan gas pumps reading "No women were stoned,mutilated or sold into slavery in the production of this fuel". I doubt that Quebec & Ontario would be able to use this on their pumps though.


----------

