The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Diemen]

That's .17%, in case you're wondering.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

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...

Sorry there is no catastrophie. All we get is assertions that are plain wrong or exagerrated. It's still appeal to authority all over again. The recent hurricane Sandy being bandied about as an example of global warming was the stupidest unscientific thing I heard except for Danny Glover blaming the Haiti earthquake on global warming. People who believe this propaganda or are undiscerning lazy parrots.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

And vice versa. If anything there are more skeptics not less. The peak for global warming was before climate gate 1.0 & 2.0.

Originally Posted by BVS

By repeating this over and over; it shows you really don't understand the point.

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.

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. We know that if trillions get put into the U.N., as was proposed before and rejected by both the GOP and Democrats, it will be wasted with corruption and do nothing about CO2 increasing.

Originally Posted by BVS

There's a huge push to end fracking down here in Texas, and guess who the loudest voices are? The Texas Tea Party.

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. 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. They complain about the 1% but would love to be just that via government. They would love to replicate Chavez and actually own the means of energy production. At least in Canada we have a government that actually curtailed some of those early retirements and we have a plan to balance the budget. It's a modest change in the right direction. Your government is plundering your youth for future taxes to keep afloat and you think Carbon Dioxide is your biggest problem?

Maybe you should charge energy taxes but instead of wasting it in Solyndra type companies how about reducing the deficit? At least they did that in New Jersey. Maybe California (which is oh-so green should do the same). At least that would be honest because governments are desperate for money and if they don't find other revenues many will have to be laid off. Global warming is just an excuse for tax collection.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by BoMac

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?

My thoughts exactly.

[purpleoscar]

It's a partisan issue precisely because of the word "striving". To stop CO2 from increasing you would need more than a depression. Secondly there are rent seekers who want to make money off of it while the economy shrinks. Thirdly CO2 is not a pollutant and is a building block of photosynthesis. Fourthly people are living longer than ever before. I would like to have perfectly clean air too with no ACTUAL pollutants, but this situation is preferable to an eternal depression. 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.

[Diemen]

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?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

And vice versa. If anything there are more skeptics not less.

The numbers say otherwise.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

No, this pretty much avoids and talks around the point as well, but hey we in FYM know that's what you do.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Global warming is just an excuse for tax collection.

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.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

Wait, so let me get this straight. So if BUSINESSES were "balking to make money off of it" then you would agree too much CO2 is harmful? Is that what I'm hearing?

[BoMac]

WATCH: An iceberg the size of a mountain cleaves itself apart - The Week

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

The numbers say otherwise.

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.

Also:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/1...oo/#more-75591

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.

Much more reasonable from a global warming guy.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

That's what you do. 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 can't argue around the fact that Democrats didn't pass cap and trade when they had the majority to do so, and you can't get around the fact that in order to reduce CO2 the taxes have to be draconian. If you don't want massive taxes it's because you really aren't afraid of a 6 degree increase in temperature.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

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. Because you know:

The Guardian's 10:10 climate change campaign - YouTube

..the 30 to 40% is much harder to do. Hard even for treehuggers.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

Well fine. That's reasonable. No full on ban.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

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?

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Diemen

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?

I'm not sure I understand this question. Are you sarcastically saying that the end of the world scenarios (which I don't think are true) makes it more cost effective to put our economies under energy starvation? I don't buy that premise at all. Also I don't put CO2 as a pollutant because it's not. I also think some environmental goals are cheaper to achieve than what cap and trade purports to achieve. A recycle program isn't going to cost as much as energy taxes that force the West to use 40% less energy.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BoMac

WATCH: An iceberg the size of a mountain cleaves itself apart - The Week

Arctic temperature amplification takes a hit in GRL | Watts Up With That?

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.

I wonder what the Arctic was like during the Medieval Warming Period..

[BVS]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

Are you suprised that some of us approach this subject with realism and reasonableness?

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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,

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:

There's no green technology for decades that can compete with fossil fuels.

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?

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

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.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

I thought you didn't like alarmists? Destroy industry?

I sometimes think you go out of your way not to understand a point.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Well fine. That's reasonable. No full on ban.

Now, you're finally understanding the reasonable side of this debate.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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?

So you met THREE declared socialists, so that qualifies that ridiculous statement earlier?

And if disgruntled Patrick Moore says it, it MUST be true.

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

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.

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.

[Vlad n U 2]

Wow, three declared socialists who love Karl Marx.

Must have been the most frightening thing in the world.

[Dfit00]

Karl Marx didn't really analize poverty from an environmental perspective.

[purpleoscar]

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

There's much more funding on the U.N. side. Koch brothers could hardly narrow the gap.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

It's still faith at this point. The scientists really don't know how much is natural versus man made. The temperatures and # of storms, etc are hardly remarkable compared to what nature has done in the past. Also when we have run up the CO2 in the early part of the planet CO2 didn't increase temperature at the same preportion as the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's marginal warming we are talking here. So to expect 6 degrees warming from a doubling of CO2 is not possible.

Originally Posted by BVS

Are you suprised that some of us approach this subject with realism and reasonableness?

Yes.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

Sure there's lots of science that I've posted that contradicts itself to a certain extent but not as badly as the "global warming" "climate change" "climate disruption" "dirty weather" we get from the alarmists. If it's cold it's our fault. If it's hot it's our fault. The science isn't there yet so we should refrain from committing trillions of dollars on a lost cause that has taxes increase and CO2 still increasing. You didn't like George Bush's wars. At least there was some positive result with that and with less cost. This would be a mistake on a grander scale.

Originally Posted by BVS

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?

It's arrogant to assume that people will tolerate a depression, let alone one that won't reduce much CO2 increase.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

It's because I look at science is not the only thing. Economics is a science that shouldn't be ignored. It really affects people.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

Well really the assertions being made are being made by global warming activists and scientists. They haven't proven their theories by a long shot so what did you expect? BTW the U.N. has an obvious agenda. Actually those above statements you list aren't in contradiction at all. There some benefits of increased CO2 for plant life we are seeing now. The policy manual for the U.N. climate change reports are politically motivated beyond the science and leap farther than the science shows and natural cycles have done much more in the past than they have now.

Originally Posted by BVS

I thought you didn't like alarmists? Destroy industry?

I sometimes think you go out of your way not to understand a point.

If we don't have to destroy industry then there must be a cheap green alternative right now to replace fossil fuels therefore no government intervention will be necessary.

Originally Posted by BVS

So you met THREE declared socialists, so that qualifies that ridiculous statement earlier?

And if disgruntled Patrick Moore says it, it MUST be true.

Patrick Moore was only one of the founders of Greenpeace and he saw Marxists move in during the eighties.

Originally Posted by BVS

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.

God you're like the Borg. "Resistance is futile". I have skepticism over most governments and after the mishandling of the European Union I should have skepticism over U.N. world government. The farther away the bureaucrats are from the people they serve the more inhuman they treat them. It's nice to see you admit you are okay with a U.N. world government managing world energy resources. Sheesh!

[BoMac]

The new normal?

Wall of sand whipped up by Tropical Cyclone Narelle hits Onslow, Western Australia | Mail Online

I really hope those pictures are photo-shopped.

[BoMac]

If only scientists had warned us:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/sc...orld.html?_r=0

[INDY500]

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.

[Jive Turkey]

Do yourself a favour and don't use that kinda stuff for an argument. It makes you 'look' foolish and like you don't know what you're talking about

[Jive Turkey]

Hey guys, look at my graph where I cherry picked temperatures in the most moderate months of the year to prove how global warming isn't happening.

[Jive Turkey]

Wow, this wasn't very difficult to find

Warmest U.S. spring on record: NOAA | Reuters

For those who don't want to click (or if you're Indy, don't want to know), it was 2012.
simpleton