• Hello, please take a minute to check out our awesome content, contributed by the wonderful members of our community. We hope you'll add your own thoughts and opinions by making a free account!

Learning Global Warming facts and fiction

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stormlover said:
I'll stick to whatever I want, thanks. If you want to dispute the facts presented, have at it. I have no time for info from the in crowd that has been proven to manipulate data to suit their agenda. You may want to forget climategate, but I'm not. No wonder they want "peer reviewed" stuff out, the "peer's are all in on the political scaremongering hysteria.
Click to expand...

To date no one from the other side has actually published any legitimate literature regarding NOAA's manipulation of the data, this claim is utter nonsense... The NOAA data has been independently verified by buoys, satellites, and the addition of millions of new observations in ICOADS version 3 improved quality control, the EOF reconstruction, and uncertainty estimates, among other things. If you want more details refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread.
old-and-new-noaa-ssts-v3-1024x1024.png
 
Webberweather53 said:
To date no one from the other side has actually published any legitimate literature regarding NOAA's manipulation of the data, this claim is utter nonsense... The NOAA data has been independently verified by buoys, satellites, and the addition of millions of new observations in ICOADS version 3 improved quality control, the EOF reconstruction, and uncertainty estimates, among other things. If you want more details refer to one of my earlier posts in this thread.
View attachment 16
Click to expand...
Again, even IF it was all true and mostly manmade(big problems with that), the solutions put out by the Al Gore's, Obama's, UN, etc. are horrible for us. No thanks. It wouldn't matter much at all and the costs would be astronomical(already the costs have hurt many in this country).
 
Stormlover said:
Even IF, and that's a big IF, some of these suspicious numbers put out by the in crowd are right, there is no amount of money we can punish ourselves with and transfer wealth to make a real difference. Thus, it's all political. And yes, it was published, you just read it, and Dr. Roy Spencer here is one of the world experts on the satellite data and he would disagree with you very much..but for starters, stop the money drain and transfer of wealth and start using our own resources again(pipelines, coal, etc)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01...en-100-of-scientists-agree-on-global-warming/
Click to expand...

Stormlover said:
totally different story than you hear put out
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
Click to expand...

*facepalm* Lmao, the daily mail op ed piece is not published literature in a reputable journal, but nice try... It's not political at all, it's a fact that human induced emissions of greenhouse gases like Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, and methane released from incomplete fossil fuel combustion, farming practices, and other various industries are increasing the energy budget of the globe via increased interception of outgoing longwave radiation. The internal inertia of the climate system and non-linear expressions and reactions amongst its various natural phenomena lead to a discontinuous rise in global temperatures with occasional inadequately denoted "pauses" in temperature, while in reality the internal equilibrium is still warming. For the most part, the other side attempts to make this argument political because they have no other physical explanation of their own to offer. You do realize that satellites and surface data aren't actually measuring the same thing? Satellite-based datasets indirectly measure temperature in the column of the troposphere (w/ significantly higher uncertainties), whilst the surface data measures temperatures directly at the ground (w/ lower uncertainties but less spatial coverage), discrepancies are to be expected, even if the observational platforms, uncertainties, and coverage in the data sources were assumed to be equivalent
 
Stormlover said:
Again, even IF it was all true and mostly manmade(big problems with that), the solutions put out by the Al Gore's, Obama's, UN, etc. are horrible for us. No thanks. It wouldn't matter much at all and the costs would be astronomical(already the costs have hurt many in this country).
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? I'm not claiming that it's mostly manmade at all, I'm only pointing out a fact that a) carbon dioxide, NOx, and methane are greenhouses gases whose concentrations are increasing due primarily to man's activities and these gases intercept outgoing longwave radiation that results in an increase in global temperatures. The real questions that remain in the climate community regarding the fate of AGW pertain to the uncertainties in aerosol and cloud feedbacks to the climate system, other natural forcings are far more likely to be closer to being resolved to this point in time (note I chose my words carefully here)... If it really was largely just natural then how do you explain the discrepancy between natural variability and the observed temperature record even since the satellite record? How do you explain the asymmetry in global temperatures in the 21st century w/ very similar natural forcing juxtaposition as we observed decades ago, better yet how does one explain why global temperatures continue to warm with each subsequent La Nina event despite the fact that the frequencies of El Ninos and La Ninas are nearly the same over the past few centuries? The system's equilibrium at an inter annual-interdecadal temporal scale is undeniably warming and is expressed through ENSO and some residual warmth released from the Indo-West Pacific warm pool during El Ninos is being retained, natural variability can not explain the latter portion of this aforementioned statement. In spite of multiple noteworthy phase shifts in decadal natural variability such as the PDO, AMO, and decrease in direct solar output (although UV variations that are an order of magnitude larger than solar irradiance contribute to indirect forcing of the BDC and stratosphere which can be communicated into the troposphere), how does one explain the unprecedented losses in both arctic and antarctic sea ice in the past several years, the expansion of the hadley cell network, the increased frequency of central pacific El Nino events and above normal-record high temperatures globally and even locally in the US and North America, decreasing long-term snowfall averages in much of the southeastern US, weakening of the upper tropospheric tropical easterly jet (TEJ) and concomitant Indian monsoon circulation with mostly natural variability? You simply can't...
 
Stormlover said:
A longer growing season helps poor people in many parts of the world too. We NEVER hear of positive impacts from any global warming.
Click to expand...

The negatives HUGELY outnumber the positives. What good is a longer growing season with NO RAIN. smdh. I'm seeing trees that have been budding since late January which I have never seen before due to the extreme warmth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stormlover said:
Again, even IF it was all true and mostly manmade(big problems with that), the solutions put out by the Al Gore's, Obama's, UN, etc. are horrible for us. No thanks. It wouldn't matter much at all and the costs would be astronomical(already the costs have hurt many in this country).
Click to expand...

Keith,
Despite the beneficial effects of warming, one thing you can't debate is the unfortunate rise in sea level from warming. I'm seeing it almost in my backyard (well, on the road to the beach about 12 miles from me). It is getting flooded at spring tide way more frequently than when I was a kid. That almost has to be due to GW. Now I'm not saying all of the GW is from AGW. I think that at least a nontrivial portion is from that. But I'm still open minded as to what % has been from AGW and what % has been a result of the most active 50 year period (1959-2000) for the sun in 400++ years as well as other possible natural factors.
 
Stormlover said:
http://www.cfact.org/2016/05/21/paper-scientists-obsessed-with-climate-models-that-dont-work/
Scientists are obsessed with climate models that don't work
Click to expand...

Lol more nonsense... I see they use an older, much cooler version of RSS. The new version is much warmer after 1998 and is more in line w/ the climate models, and all of the more reliable surface-based datasets are practically near the ensemble mean of the climate models.
Screen Shot 2017-02-06 at 7.15.18 AM.png

Of course if you still somehow think the satellite data is more reliable, coming straight from the horse's mouth, one of the creators of RSS speaks about the relative uncertainties and reliability of the surface and satellite data. Once again, it's pretty clear the surface data is more reliable...
 
Webberweather53 said:
Click to expand...

John Christy lives here where I do, and he's what you call a "skeptic"...he doesn't buy the man made GW disaster fearmongering at all, and doesn't buy that it's settled science at all. Far from it. He works with Dr. Roy Spencer and they are two of the most outspoken critics of the UN's agenda and the massive transfer of wealth using this as an excuse that Obama and others want to do. Oh, and the video didn't even spell his name right

Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist since November 2000. He is mostly known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. Roy Spencer received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Christy helped draft and signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [Source: Wikipedia].

Dr. Christy believes that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and doubts that human activity is to blame for most of the observed recent warming.
 
This is from one of your links saying we have to be at 300 ppm CO2 or we're screwed which has a lot of evidence to back it up.

bbeed838baefc610892adc3f73967ed0.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Stormlover said:
Wow
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...rs-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html
Click to expand...

Why are you posting this crap again?
Let me just re-iterate in case I didn't make myself clear the first time... The daily mail authors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. For starters, they don't even know how to use the same base period to compare the HADCRUT and NOAA global temperature datasets which they claim to be fraudulent because the NOAA dataset is supposedly warmer, when in fact they forgot to use the same base period to compare anomaly data for both datasets (oops!)... That elementary mistake alone discredits their entire article. Smh...
Screen Shot 2017-02-06 at 10.52.35 PM.png
 
Hold on, it gets better... When you utilize the same base period w/ NOAA's ERSSTv4 and the UK Met Office Hadley Centre's HADSST3, the Hadley Centre data is actually warmer anomaly wise. Lol
Pic via Zeke Hausfather

C3302blVMAEZ-Da.jpg
 
Stormlover said:
John Christy lives here where I do, and he's what you call a "skeptic"...he doesn't buy the man made GW disaster fearmongering at all, and doesn't buy that it's settled science at all. Far from it. He works with Dr. Roy Spencer and they are two of the most outspoken critics of the UN's agenda and the massive transfer of wealth using this as an excuse that Obama and others want to do. Oh, and the video didn't even spell his name right

Dr. John Christy is a Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). He has also been Alabama's State Climatologist since November 2000. He is mostly known for his work with the satellite-based temperature monitoring for which he and Dr. Roy Spencer received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal. Christy helped draft and signed the 2003 American Geophysical Union statement on climate change [Source: Wikipedia].

Dr. Christy believes that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and doubts that human activity is to blame for most of the observed recent warming.
Click to expand...

Dr. Christy and Roy Spencer are among a few fringe scientists that deniers run to in a last ditch attempt to present any legitimate skepticism towards AGW, however both of these scientists usually fail to contrive any really legitimate, verifiable, and/or publishable arguments that will significantly alter the AGW theory. In fact, one of Christy's latest statements regarding the climate models' recent handling of global temperatures shows how out of touch he is with reality...
February 2016 Dr. John Christy “The real world is not going along with rapid warming. The models need to go back to the drawing board.”
Lol....
Screen Shot 2017-02-06 at 7.15.18 AM.png
 
Again, I've already mentioned this wrt adjustments but just to drive this point home yet again so there's no more confusion, particularly in the cooler and earlier portions of the record, the adjustments to global temperature stations have actually been more favorable towards less warming at least in the surface based datasets...
Screen Shot 2017-02-06 at 11.10.01 PM.png
 
Webberweather53 said:
Why are you posting this crap again?
Let me just re-iterate in case I didn't make myself clear the first time... The daily mail authors have absolutely no idea what they're talking about. For starters, they don't even know how to use the same base period to compare the HADCRUT and NOAA global temperature datasets which they claim to be fraudulent because the NOAA dataset is supposedly warmer, when in fact they forgot to use the same base period to compare anomaly data for both datasets (oops!)... That elementary mistake alone discredits their entire article. Smh...
View attachment 33
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's just tough. The expert used could have been in any publication...so the lame excuse to trash the mail is a big fail. It's sad to see so many that have such a closed mind to what is going on and not believe anything wrong is happening with any of this related to GW. Keep your head in the sand, I don't care. Don't respond to my "trash" anymore if you don't like it.
 
Stormlover said:
I'm sorry you don't like it, but that's just tough. The expert used could have been in any publication...so the lame excuse to trash the mail is a big fail. It's sad to see so many that have such a closed mind to what is going on and not believe anything wrong is happening with any of this related to GW. Keep your head in the sand, I don't care. Don't respond to my "trash" anymore if you don't like it.
Click to expand...

What in the world are you talking about?. Do you not understand that even if you use the exact same data, you get different temperature anomalies if you use different climatological base periods? The daily mail compared the NOAA data to HADCRUT with a different base period assigned to each dataset. Then the authors screamed bloddy murder when the NOAA data was warmer than HADCRUT. In reality, the NOAA temperature anomalies were derived against a colder base period in comparison to HADCRUT, hence their modern anomalies are warmer than HADCRUT which uses a warmer base period, therefore its anomalies are closer to 0, but the editors of the Daily Mail obviously weren't smart enough to think that one through and check for this simple mistake, or were lying about there being any fabrication in the first place and thus were purposely misleading their readers. Therefore their entire argument about NOAA's data fabrication is complete garbage, and I've shown you time & time again, the adjustments actually reduce the long term rate of warming in the data... Seriously, pull your head out of the sand, this isn't that hard to figure out...
 
From Dr. Roy Spencer about the story I posted above(which was using a good, expert source)
yes, I know John Bates, and have known about this brewing internal controversy for the last year or so. Glad Bates is speaking out. I also see Rush covered it today. The story might get legs and help lead to a new NOAA Administrator who will look into the issue and not just sweep it under the rug. I do think Karl's new dataset was politicized science purposely concocted to support the Paris Climate Agreement, with dubious justification. It all looked very fishy.
 
Stormlover said:
From Dr. Roy Spencer about the story I posted above(which was using a good, expert source)
yes, I know John Bates, and have known about this brewing internal controversy for the last year or so. Glad Bates is speaking out. I also see Rush covered it today. The story might get legs and help lead to a new NOAA Administrator who will look into the issue and not just sweep it under the rug. I do think Karl's new dataset was politicized science purposely concocted to support the Paris Climate Agreement, with dubious justification. It all looked very fishy.
Click to expand...

I think you started this thread AGAIN so you could post nonsense that no one else is agreeing with. I don't need NASA or NOAA to tell me it's getting warmer, just walk outside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHS1975 said:
I think you started this thread AGAIN so you could post nonsense that no one else is agreeing with. I don't need NASA or NOAA to tell me it's getting warmer, just walk outside.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
o_O well that settles it, it's warmer in Raleigh, NC so mankind is causing the world to be destroyed. You can't make up stuff this nutty.;)
 
mydoortotheworld said:
I don't understand you stormlover. Just trying to catch up here: Do you think climate change is caused by man or not?
Click to expand...
I think man has very little to do with it compared to natural effects. There has always been climate change, even way before we started using oil, etc. It was warmed in the middle ages than now. Also, the climate change models have been way off, and there was basically a pause for about 16 years when the models showed a rapid increase due to happen. Finally, I believe that even if the far left UN/Al Gore/ etc claims were right(they have been way off, over and over) that the cost to make a minute change would be so high it's never going to happen, so we need to stop hurting ourselves. I'm all for alternative energy. I'm also for us using our natural resources which we will still depend on for many decades to come.
Here is more about what this is really about
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
 
Last edited:
I'm still learning about this issue, but I can already tell you that is one of the most sensationalist headlines I have ever read in my whole life. You must be careful about what news sources you are using. Anyone can just take any quote out of context and spin it in any form or fashion that they like. Stuff like this requires media literacy and from the way you simply pick and choose articles to fit your narrative, I don't know if you have it...
 
mydoortotheworld said:
I'm still learning about this issue, but I can already tell you that is one of the most sensationalist headlines I have ever read in my whole life. You must be careful about what news sources you are using. Anyone can just take any quote out of context and spin it in any form or fashion that they like. Stuff like this requires media literacy and from the way you simply pick and choose articles to fit your narrative, I don't know if you have it...
Click to expand...
What headline? The spin is on the other side, and time after time we find they have mainipulated data or done something else to fit their agenda...glad we have an administration in now that will give opposing sides their fair hearing and not doing things like this: FEDERAL SCIENTIST COOKED CLIMATE CHANGE BOOKS AHEAD OF OBAMA PRESENTATION
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017...bama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
 
Stormlover said:
What headline? The spin is on the other side, and time after time we find they have mainipulated data or done something else to fit their agenda...glad we have an administration in now that will give opposing sides their fair hearing and not doing things like this: FEDERAL SCIENTIST COOKED CLIMATE CHANGE BOOKS AHEAD OF OBAMA PRESENTATION
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017...bama-presentation-whistle-blower-charges.html
Click to expand...

Lol sure it is, I just find it very ironic how you scream bloody murder that the other side is spinning the issue and is politically motivated when virtually every one of your posts here are riddled w/ erroneous assumptions, little if any discussion of the actual meteorology that goes into (or to refute) AGW, and/or nonsensical political slander. I really don't feel like going through this again, I mean I don't know how many times I have to explain myself that the adjustments to the data a) are less significant than the actual trends themselves, b) actually create less warming, c) are vital due to c1) the addition of million of new observations c2) alterations in instrumentation (due to outage, natural/man-made disasters destroying or causes stations to move), better calibration, QC methodology, etc & c3) to homogenize completely.different observational platforms w/ their own sources of bias and error, and I could keep going on & on...
 
Stormlover said:
I think man has very little to do with it compared to natural effects. There has always been climate change, even way before we started using oil, etc. It was warmed in the middle ages than now. Also, the climate change models have been way off, and there was basically a pause for about 16 years when the models showed a rapid increase due to happen. Finally, I believe that even if the far left UN/Al Gore/ etc claims were right(they have been way off, over and over) that the cost to make a minute change would be so high it's never going to happen, so we need to stop hurting ourselves. I'm all for alternative energy. I'm also for us using our natural resources which we will still depend on for many decades to come.
Here is more about what this is really about
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism
Click to expand...

There actually was no "pause"... at least in the sense that one side of the AGW is trying to implore, aside from the fact that the global temperatures are currently near if not slightly above the center of the climate model projections. The internal equilibrium of the climate system was still getting warmer, the system is large and relatively inefficient, and the supposed "pause" in temperature was merely an illusion to the fact that the system's expressions were juxtaposed s.t. the heat was more effectively redistributed and sequestered only to very temporarily suppress the long term (& increasing) upward trend in temperature, which vehemently returned last year (as expected) and may continue especially if another El Nino develops next year. Again, if this rise in global temperature was largely natural, then why are there such large inter annual-interdecadal asymmetries in the global temperature response due to ENSO in the satellite era? Why are the temperature spikes due to El Nino so much larger than the declines during the subsequent La Nina events. Essentially what I'm asking is if this modern warming is largely being controlled by natural variability, what exactly is (are) the natural forcing mechanism(s) causing the positive residual and the temperature spikes to be semi-permanent? How do you account for the increasing integrated anthropogenic footprint in the climate and isolate natural variability from man-made variability when the former's character is also changing at the expense of the latter? Therein lies the discontinuity in a denier's line of rationale and where many fail to the next step and connect the dots... To date, natural variability alone or even w/ the majority of forcing originating from natural variability, can not explain the observed aforementioned alterations in the climate system's promulgation of global temperature, better yet, it's also becoming increasingly apparent that the conduit through which the climate system is expressing these "natural" forces is also changing, thus, what one insinuates as "natural" forcing in the 21st century is significantly different from the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries and may not be applicable...

"I think man has very little to do with it compared to natural effects. There has always been climate change, even way before we started using oil, etc."
While the climate has always changed in the past w/ natural forcing, the forcings and natural processes (as I explained a little above) are not the same anymore, esp with the unprecedented rapid rise in carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, CFCs, and other GHGs that has likely not been observed in earth's history for an appreciable amount of time, potentially on the order of billions of years...
 
Webberweather53 said:
There actually was no "pause"... at least in the sense that one side of the AGW is trying to implore, aside from the fact that the global temperatures are currently near if not slightly above the center of the climate model projections. The internal equilibrium of the climate system was still getting warmer, the system is large and relatively inefficient, and the supposed "pause" in temperature was merely an illusion to the fact that the system's expressions were juxtaposed s.t. the heat was more effectively redistributed and sequestered only to very temporarily suppress the long term (& increasing) upward trend in temperature, which vehemently returned last year (as expected) and may continue especially if another El Nino develops next year. Again, if this rise in global temperature was largely natural, then why are there such large inter annual-interdecadal asymmetries in the global temperature response due to ENSO in the satellite era? Why are the temperature spikes due to El Nino so much larger than the declines during the subsequent La Nina events. Essentially what I'm asking is if this modern warming is largely being controlled by natural variability, what exactly is (are) the natural forcing mechanism(s) causing the positive residual and the temperature spikes to be semi-permanent? How do you account for the increasing integrated anthropogenic footprint in the climate and isolate natural variability from man-made variability when the former's character is also changing at the expense of the latter? Therein lies the discontinuity in a denier's line of rationale and where many fail to the next step and connect the dots... To date, natural variability alone or even w/ the majority of forcing originating from natural variability, can not explain the observed aforementioned alterations in the climate system's promulgation of global temperature, better yet, it's also becoming increasingly apparent that the conduit through which the climate system is expressing these "natural" forces is also changing, thus, what one insinuates as "natural" forcing in the 21st century is significantly different from the 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries and may not be applicable...

...
Click to expand...
No, they have continued to lag behind what models have shown.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/02/95-of-climate-models-agree-the-observations-must-be-wrong/
CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013-1024x921.png
 
From your CO2 coalition link that you just posted:
"Climate alarmism can also be a pretext for the redistribution on of wealth on a global scale. You can never be green enough, Comrade, and climate change offers a potent pretext for the consolidation on of governmental power: it is, as one wag put, the “killer app” for extending governmental control."
This is classic far-right-wing crap spewing alarmism at its finest. I understand being a climate change skeptic in terms of whether or not our models today can accurately predict the future, but this? This is absolute bullcrap and you know it, I know it, and everybody knows it.
 
so do i ever get just a normal spring, summer, fall and winter again, or do i just go buy as much whiskey as i can find, drink myself silly thinking it's all over, and wait for whatever --- just askin' as i do not have 1000 years to later evaluate ....
 
Webberweather53 said:
You do realize that Dr. Roy Spencer used a 5-year average (1979-1983) vs UAH & HADCRUT4 which use a warmer 1981-2010 base period to create this graph, which shifted CIMP5 up by 0.3 degrees? Smh, deception at it's finest...
Click to expand...
Yeah, the climategate crowd have deceived so many...now when a NOAA whistleblower comes forward it creates hostility. It's like a religion to so many of you.
 
Webberweather53 said:
It's not a religion, it's a fact that Dr. Roy Spencer manipulated that specific graph... Jeez.
Click to expand...
Many of the in crowd "peers" had a HUGE scandal called climategate, where it was proven they manipulated data for their agenda. Do you need to review that again? You act like it never happened. Now we hear about this incident during Obama's time to get the Paris deal. It is a constant thing with the ones that treat it like a religion.
Finally, again, even if it was all as the climategaters claim...there is nothing we can do to make a big enough change anyway, yet even that would cost us so many trillions of transferred wealth...it's a non starter. But controlling more of lives, hurting our use of our own resources, and increasing energy costs is all good for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
 
Stormlover said:
Many of the in crowd "peers" had a HUGE scandal called climategate, where it was proven they manipulated data for their agenda. Do you need to review that again? You act like it never happened. Now we hear about this incident during Obama's time to get the Paris deal. It is a constant thing with the ones that treat it like a religion.
Finally, again, even if it was all as the climategaters claim...there is nothing we can do to make a big enough change anyway, yet even that would cost us so many trillions of transferred wealth...it's a non starter. But controlling more of lives, hurting our use of our own resources, and increasing energy costs is all good for them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...icked-with-flawed-data-on-global-warming.html
Click to expand...

Nice strawman... I was once a climate change denier, so I'm very familiar with the climategate "scandal" and used to tout it as evidence of data manipulation and alarmism until I actually stopped focusing on the political aspect of the issue and studied the meteorology and science involved in AGW and read & absorbed a multitude of information from a vast array of climate papers from both sides of the issue. The over-arching theme that soon became apparent was a) the lack of a very solid, competing theory against AGW b) the multitude of failed predictions from the denier side (& incessant wish casting of a cooler climate/ice age and persistence of the "pause") c) reliance on a few, misconstrued pieces of information d) dearth of published literature, etc. but I digress... Essentially what transpired is the emails of several reputable scientists at East Anglia were illegally hacked and their messages were taken entirely out of context and it was later discovered that they didn't actually commit any wrongdoing and the denier assertions of supposed data manipulation were simply not true. Why don't you stick to the science & meteorology of AGW instead of focusing on fringe scientists, claims, and political puppets on either side of the issue?
 
Climate change as a whole is political. No matter what the real story is data-wise, both sides will wage a war on it to fit their agenda and twist it into their views.

I gave up on it a long time ago. No offense or anything. I don't deny or claim it. I'd just rather spend a billion dollars on my friends and family's lives than a bunch of ants and roaches that may live past a nuclear war.

It's like these guys with their models and stuff want to claim credit like 3000 years after their death for figuring it out.
 
It's a lose-lose argument; can anybody deny the "trends" over the last 30 -40 years or so; no. I can draw on my own experience of being able to skate on the ponds and C&O Canal up in the DC area back in the 70's routinely; sledding down a hill onto the country club lake that had ice 2 feet thick, etc. Doubtful there's been many years that's been done lately.

On the other hand is the "science" settled as claimed; highly doubtful. Man in his arrogance thinks he can say for certain he has caused the climate to change; has he really? There is no such thing as settled science, science is a process.

At the end of the day does a slightly warming planet really hurt mankind? Greenland was farmed centuries ago; is that a bad thing? Was the land mass where coastal cities now exist underwater during that timeframe, no. Have we further encroached into coastal areas that for centuries helped protect the land mass further inland, yes. Does that encroachment allow for the possibility of disaster, absolutely.

Does what is going on justify hundreds of billions of dollars being spent when that money could've been used for education/farming techniques/irrigation techniques/etc, I say no. Should we develop alternative sources of energy, absolutely. Is that energy reliable, without quantum leaps in storage capacity, it is not. Should there be a blend of technologies, yes.

I do find one hypothesis about the current state of earths weather extremely intriguing which is the enhanced solar activity over the last hundred years or so has greatly contributed to the warming of the oceans thus potentially vastly affecting the natural weather cycles to such a degree that it has contributed to the warming. There appears to be a lag effect with that enhanced activity so the current solar decrease could potentially affect the cycles however it will be many years before that effect can be quantified or observed.

At the end of the day it's a no-win argument, I firmly believe the man-made argument helps justify huge expenses that in the end contribute zero to the betterment of mankind and only help line the pockets of a few when those resources could be expended towards the actual betterment of mankind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top