That's .17%, in case you're wondering.
Last edited:
Everytime Al's name is mentioned with climate change, another million sets of eyes role
The science on cancer and HIV is pretty clear, but just like climate change has it's deniers, both in the science community and in the general public. One need look no further than FYM to find both type of deniers...
Intelligent skeptics are becoming fewer and farther between. I've seen many in the scientific community even who were deniers now moved to the fence.
By repeating this over and over; it shows you really don't understand the point.
There's a huge push to end fracking down here in Texas, and guess who the loudest voices are? The Texas Tea Party.
I think it's generally accepted that the planet goes through natural warming and cooling periods. But is it such a stretch to think that man-made effects have caused an acceleration of that process?
And even if none of that were true, can anyone seriously say with a straight face that copious amounts of fossil fuels emissions is good for our health? What is so wrong with striving to create a cleaner, healthier environment for our kids, grandkids and generations to come? Why is this even a partisan issue?
The numbers say otherwise.And vice versa. If anything there are more skeptics not less.
No, this pretty much avoids and talks around the point as well, but hey we in FYM know that's what you do.The point is that people complain about it but really aren't going to do much about it because they are hypocrites. It's annoying to say the least. Secondly the temperatures are unremarkable. The bigger difference is the propaganda which was quite silent before the election and has now ramped up again and that's really what we are dealing with. I'm starting to think that half the population can easily be indoctrinated like sheep if the media puts an all out offensive. If it is that bad then they deserve what they get.
That's what governments are doing.The only money government should be putting in is research and development. The market will take care of itself precisely because things have to get cheaper in order for the public to adopt it in a widespread way.
Very few are calling for a full on ban, but we're draining water supplies down here in Texas. We've had small towns that have completely gone without water and had to have it shipped in because of fracking. We've also had earthquakes in areas that have never had recorded earthquakes ever. So only a responsible adult, no matter what side of the aisle, would take pause and wonder if this is worth the cost.I don't care if Ronald Reagan came back from the dead and attacked fracking it's still going to go ahead. We need cheap fuel for economic growth to come back. All there needs to be for fracking is oversite and regulation to keep it reasonably safe. Each area should be looked at seperately instead of an outright ban.
You should start your own radio show. At least you still actually believe this nonsense, most of your constituents just repeat this rhetoric to gain points.Most of the green types are just massive socialists that find energy is the way to continue the growth of government and they don't care about higher energy costs because they are insulated by their government benefits.
This was the plan all along, scientists were hoping no one caught on, but you cracked the code. All science is a sham, it was developed to turn the people into sheep and collect taxes.Global warming is just an excuse for tax collection.
If green energy was cheaper than fossil fuels and businesses were balking to make money off of it (why would that happen?) then I would agree with all of you.
The numbers say otherwise.
You might be surprised to learn three things about Dr. Muller:
1. He says Hurricane Sandy cannot be attributed to climate change.
2. He suggests individually reducing our carbon footprint is pointless — we need to “think globally and act globally,” by encouraging the switch from coal to gas power in China and developing nations. He’s a fan of “clean fracking.”
3. He says climate skeptics deserve our respect, not our ridicule.
Muller said he hopes that Berkeley Earth will be able to coordinate with the Clinton Foundation on their mutual goal of mitigating global warming.
No, this pretty much avoids and talks around the point as well, but hey we in FYM know that's what you do.
That's what governments are doing.
I do find it funny that you have very little respect of science, but you believe without doubt that the market will "take care of itself" typical Rushite.
Research, development, and mass production will eventually bring the costs down, but it takes time. Think about all the technologies we own today and where they started; most were only affordable to the very rich when first developed. This is why I say you don't understand the point above; you keep repeating ad nauseum that there is no technology that can compete with fossil fuels but this is incorrect. There are plenty of technologies that can but they've been thwarted by markets, or ignored for so long that we're at an infancy stage when we could have been at the adult stage.
Very few are calling for a full on ban, but we're draining water supplies down here in Texas. We've had small towns that have completely gone without water and had to have it shipped in because of fracking. We've also had earthquakes in areas that have never had recorded earthquakes ever. So only a responsible adult, no matter what side of the aisle, would take pause and wonder if this is worth the cost.
You should start your own radio show. At least you still actually believe this nonsense, most of your constituents just repeat this rhetoric to gain points.
This was the plan all along, scientists were hoping no one caught on, but you cracked the code. All science is a sham, it was developed to turn the people into sheep and collect taxes.
So we shouldn't try to make our environment cleaner because... it would take a lot to change it, lots of CO2 is actually good for us, some people might take advantage of it and it's not as cheap as doing nothing?
This study investigates the statistical significance of the trends of station temperature time series from the European Climate Assessment & Data archive poleward of 60°N. The trends are identified by different methods and their significance is assessed by three different null models of climate noise. All stations show a warming trend but only 17 out of the 109 considered stations have trends which cannot be explained as arising from intrinsic [natural] climate fluctuations when tested against any of the three null models. Out of those 17, only one station exhibits a warming trend which is significant against all three null models. The stations with significant warming trends are located mainly in Scandinavia and Iceland.
Actually, that's not true, the numbers are overwhelming throughout the scientific community. You might get a slight bump if you include geologists but still very overwhelming.Climatology definitely has AGW believers outsizing skeptics but if you include geologists then it isn't as bad. Also science isn't really about a the number of people on each side. What matters is if your right or wrong. Since there is so much funding going into AGW it's not a surprise that people will align their careers with the point of view that gets the most funding.
Are you suprised that some of us approach this subject with realism and reasonableness?Also:
Richard Muller cozying up to Bill Clinton – but there’s good news too | Watts Up With That?
Much more reasonable from a global warming guy.
Well you really haven't argued against the science, at least not in any convincing way. You've posted a bunch of science that contradicts itself, but no one here really knows where you stand with the science except that you tow the party line and are against any government initiative to reduce CO2.I've argued against the science, politics, and economics on mulitple threads. You can't get around the fact that the alarmism doesn't match the science,
You keep repeating this mantra, but you never really answer any points made about it. This isn't about "alarmists" this is about knowing something has to be done now because these technologies will take time to develop to that level. It's arrogant to think, well if it can't happen now, we'll just keep using fossil fuels until then, and then everyone looks around and asks why weren't we working on something?There's no green technology for decades that can compete with fossil fuels.
No, you don't have any respect for it. You just stated earlier that you would "agree with all of us" if businesses acted a certain way. That's not having a principled view towards science, that's letting a market shape your thoughts.No, I have respect for science I just think there's too much politics involved with an agenda that obviously increases the size of the government in the energy sector which undermines the science. In Europe they failed with their cap and trade regimes in reducing CO2 precisely because of the economic arguments I've made for years. The market will pursue new technologies if they have the potential to be cheaper. Once they start getting there then more countries can AFFORD to expand because it doesn't require their populaces to work more jobs to pay for it.
I thought you didn't like alarmists? Destroy industry?This doesn't even compare to a worldwide cap and trade scheme that would be necessary to prevent countries like China and India from cheating and still adding to the CO2 level in the sky. You need to destroy industry (which all modern industries need cheap fossil fuels to make cheap enough products to stay employed) and prevent the 3rd world countries, the U.N. says they love, from developing. You greatly underestimate the human cost. It's not like waiting for a new iPod or flat screen to go down in price. It's expected to take decades. Smaller scale research and development can find breakthroughs. It doesn't take the world to adopt half baked technologies for a breakthrough to occur. When energy costs increase it's not just the rich adopting a new technology. The costs spread everywhere because everyone needs energy.
Now, you're finally understanding the reasonable side of this debate.Well fine. That's reasonable. No full on ban.
I've met so many socialists in real life. They actually do exist. I carpooled a couple of years ago to a hike and these two ladies were teachers and guess what? They love Karl Marx and the German lady liked Hitler because of the Autobahn (but this is likely just Nationalist crap than a true belief). They loved the Cuban healthcare system and believe in global warming. A couple of days later this German lady protested at the capital of Alberta protesting the use of oil period. I saw her on TV. Nevermind we were driving in a CAR to go to a hike...ARRARARGGHGHG! Then on the hike I met a Green party politician who's an electrician who lost the election and he went on and on about an Australian climate alarmist who's full of shit. Then he had the gall to say that he wasn't a socialist right when the socialist lady whispered behind him to "get him on your side". Man it was like I was hiking with the thought police. There is a partisan divide and it was there all along. Patrick Moore said the Marxists took over Greenpeace. Is he a talk radio fanatic?
And now we're back to original bump of this thread, those that deny global warming or more likely to believe in conspiratorial theories. Thanks!Yes. The U.N. has been using many different reasons over decades to try and fleece the West. If it isn't global warming it's global cooling or famine. The solution is always the same. A U.N. world government. I'm sure the corruption and waste of taxpayer's dollars would be second to none.
Actually, that's not true, the numbers are overwhelming throughout the scientific community. You might get a slight bump if you include geologists but still very overwhelming.
The only time you MIGHT get a bump in your direction is if you include political scientists in your pool of "scientists".
There's funding on both sides, if you look back just recently the Koch brothers threw millions of dolloars into funding only to have THEIR scientists state the opposite of what they were hoping for.
You're right though, it does come down to being right or wrong, but part of science is consensus, part of logic, reason, anything outside of faith comes down to the numbers.
Are you suprised that some of us approach this subject with realism and reasonableness?
Well you really haven't argued against the science, at least not in any convincing way. You've posted a bunch of science that contradicts itself, but no one here really knows where you stand with the science except that you tow the party line and are against any government initiative to reduce CO2.
This STILL doesn't answer the real point, which you stated several posts back:
You keep repeating this mantra, but you never really answer any points made about it. This isn't about "alarmists" this is about knowing something has to be done now because these technologies will take time to develop to that level. It's arrogant to think, well if it can't happen now, we'll just keep using fossil fuels until then, and then everyone looks around and asks why weren't we working on something?
No, you don't have any respect for it. You just stated earlier that you would "agree with all of us" if businesses acted a certain way. That's not having a principled view towards science, that's letting a market shape your thoughts.
You're what I call a "shit thrower", you establish a view first, either based on a market or party affiliation, and THEN you go out and find "science" that fits your agenda. You throw what ever shit you can at the wall and see what sticks.I've seen you throw, the more CO2 the better at the wall.
I've seen you throw, yes it's warming but it's just a natural cycle and we have no impact.
I've seen you throw, it's a complete hoax, there is no warming or change in climate.
THIS is not a respect for science.
I thought you didn't like alarmists? Destroy industry?
I sometimes think you go out of your way not to understand a point.
So you met THREE declared socialists, so that qualifies that ridiculous statement earlier?
And if disgruntled Patrick Moore says it, it MUST be true.
And now we're back to original bump of this thread, those that deny global warming or more likely to believe in conspiratorial theories. Thanks!
You have an irrational fear of a UN world government, therefore you're going to take that stance first and then find the reasons and the "science" to deny it second.
I think we can all agree that it's been a crappy spring.
Not if you live in Texas. Cooler than normal makes this place somewhat livable.
That's still some drought you've got going on.
Weirdly, I really like a lot about Texas. I've even been west of Waco in mid-July and really didn't hate it at all. Fascinating landscape.
Dallas kind of sucks though.
US Headed For The Coldest Spring On Record | Real Science
At the two-thirds mark for meteorological spring, 2013 was the second coldest spring on record – slightly warmer than 1975.
Darn facts.
As horrible a film as "The Day After Tomorrow" was. It actually got one thing right. Global warming is expected to cause the north east to be colder. The melting of the polar ice caps wreaks havoc with the major ocean currents due to the desalinization of the ocean. The reason that the Northeast has a relatively moderate climate for it's latitude is because of the Gulf Stream. That current brings warm water up the coast, and it's why the Atlantic is so warm. If that current is weakened, the East Coast gets cold.
Now I'm not saying the Cold spring on the East Coast is due to that, but I wanted to show that Climate Change doesn't just mean warmer temps. Climate science is extraordinarily complex, so just posting random temps to refute what the vast majority of the scientific community is saying is like posting the winner of a lottery while saying that it's proof that anyone can make money in a lottery.