[Sonsowey]

Chaos, in Colombia they joke that homeless people are the recycling service.

There is still trash everywhere, just not plastic or metal.

[heavy]

Ok I'll validate one of those graphs with a response. Your other graphs are just as presumptuous, but you can research the frailty of those yourself.

(08-20-2014 12:20 AM)Sonsowey Wrote:  

How are they measuring sea levels? Or rather, how are they measuring sea levels within inches? The video below is less than 4 minutes. That's less than 4 minutes to understand the feebleness of the science behind the millions (billions?) of dollars in resources that is going to our climate scare that could have gone to viable technological developments.

[Genghis Khan]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

In a nutshell: they take into account local changes due to gravity and all. They're using two independent measures of calculating the sea level and one of the measure has been found to be accurate within 1mm per year.

I highly recommend anyone interested in this topic to check out skepticalscience.com. If you have an argument against climate change, they most likely have an answer for your criticisms.

[Menace]

Look at the axes on that graph. The x-axis is a span of 140 years, and the y-axis a sea level in mm. I have become more skeptical because people just take models as gospel, when all models are by definition wrong. Some are useful. What were the sea level changes on period of some actual geological siginifcance, like 100 million years. Any data on that? Suppose some years had sea level changes that were a magnitude higher than observed today. What does that imply? Is it possible to back out allegedly human caused changes from the intrinsic cycles of the planet?

How can this, or any other model be falsified? What is the predictive power of any given model? What do they say should happen in 10, 20, or 100 years. If the predictions fail, will the proponents of the model say they were wrong, or merely that the model is imperfect and didn't account for some other factor, which, if included (in retrospect of course), will give the observed results. Which do you suppose is more likely?

I just find a lot of the discussion wildly unscientific even in its most basic form. This is understandable because a lot of grant money can be had supporting climate change hypotheses, and relatively little for arguing against them.

From a geopolitical perspective, suppose the US does everything climate change proponents claim needs to be done, but the rest of the world does not follow suit (e.g. Brazil, China, Russia, India, etc.). Suppose that just the US alone acting is insufficient to halt climate change. Then what? Will the US go to war to force China to use compact fluorescent bulbs? (I'm being fascetious, but you get the point).

[Sp5]

Whether global warming is because of human carbon burning or not, I am all in favor of acting as if it is. It really does not make much difference with regard to policy.

1. Competition for petroleum sources causes wars, we need an alternative way of powering things;

2. Petroleum will become more costly and run out, see #1, we need alternatives;

3. If it is caused by burning carbon and the doomsayers are correct, things will be fucked.

[The Beast1]

(08-20-2014 12:04 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Whether global warming is because of human carbon burning or not, I am all in favor of acting as if it is. It really does not make much difference with regard to policy.

1. Competition for petroleum sources causes wars, we need an alternative way of powering things;

2. Petroleum will become more costly and run out, see #1, we need alternatives;

3. If it is caused by burning carbon and the doomsayers are correct, things will be fucked.

Agreed, we have the technology RIGHT NOW to decrease our reliance on foreign energy sources.

Nuclear and thorium based reactors (the latter does not melt down) and even better natural gas power cars. How come we don't see more of the natural gas powered cars? Instead we get an overly expensive electronic car for rich people's play things.

This country needs to focus less on "environmentalism" and more on national security. The military gets this and yet we still see a bunch of goons doing the opposite.

I sense a coup might come in the future. Hopefully the military leaders will be smart and support homegrown local militias.

[rekruler]

It's amusing how VEHEMENT some people here are that global warning must be happening and moreover must be caused by human activities. Myself, I'm of the opinion that both the warming and the extent to which humans contribute to it are overplayed in the media. With that said, I'm not devoting my life to the study of environmental data so I'd never be so damn VEHEMENT that my stance must be right. We must have a lot of earth science PHDs here.

Unless of course all you guys convinced that man made GW is a clear and present danger hold that opinion simply because its trumpeted by the mainstream media all the time. That's pretty blue pill. There are quite a few topics these days that are held sacred by the MSM and against which dissent is utterly prohibited. Shit like feminism, gay rights, immigration, "rape culture," and global warming all fall on that list of stuff you can't try to discuss except to..hmmm...VEHEMENTLY agree with the prevailing narrative. That in itself says something I think.

[tarquin]

(08-20-2014 12:04 PM)Sp5 Wrote:  

Whether global warming is because of human carbon burning or not, I am all in favor of acting as if it is. It really does not make much difference with regard to policy.

1. Competition for petroleum sources causes wars, we need an alternative way of powering things;

2. Petroleum will become more costly and run out, see #1, we need alternatives;

3. If it is caused by burning carbon and the doomsayers are correct, things will be fucked.

I'm with you. Additionally, I'm more concerned with surface pollution including water pollution. Proper implementation can kill two birds with one stone.

[Aurini]

(12-17-2013 01:46 PM)Kid Strangelove Wrote:  

If global warming turns out to be a sham, then what do we have to show for it? Oh I know, a better environment that we try to take care of

Not to sound all Dwight Shrute, but...

False. If Anthropic Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions turns out to be a chimera, then we will have spent billions of dollars doing precisely nothing. Meanwhile, very real environmental threats such as excess plastics in the oceans, birth control in the water supply (screwing up the mating rituals of tons of species, not just our own), the increase of rare-earth-metals and mining, possible over-use of industrial fertilizers, irresponsible GMO development, nuclear fallout, and oil spills will fall by the wayside. Our planet will be more messed up because we followed the apocalyptic visions of the IPCC.

I'm agnostic on AGW, leaning towards suspicious - the science never acknowledges the roles of the sun or cosmic radiation in cloud formation, and the process for funding the research seems innately biased. It's the academic equivalent of asking "How often do you beat your wife?" The structure is such that OF COURSE it winds up proving the privileged hypothesis correct.

Far more worrying, however, is that the proposed 'solutions' to Global Warming are obviously ineffectual to anybody who's studied basic economics. Like most socialist/SJW solutions, they actually harm what they're proposing to help, while providing a tidy income for a tiny number of elites who are in charge of the whole thing.

Ergo, I'm left with the political conclusion that - even if the IPCC is right about AGW (and even if they are, that's more attributable to blind luck than intelligence), I must take a stand against the Green movement, because the Green movement is ultimately responsible for destroying the environment.

In other words, to save the planet, we must first destroy the Green movement.

EDIT: There has only been one policy coming out of the Greenwash that actually makes sense, and which I'd support even if I knew for a fact that AGW was utter bunk - Obama's recent proposed tax on petroleum resources.

If I were God Emperor, I'd institute a 300% tax on petroleum, not because of CO2, but because - by all indications - it's a one-time endowment for our civilization, and we're wasting it on long road trips and plastic crap from McDonalds.

Everything else, however - Carbon Credits, government subsidization of nepotistic Solar Panel companies (when solar isn't a soultion to begin with) - do absolutely nothing to reduce carbon consumption, they create the illusion of making a change, and they benefit a small number of elitists.

[Heathree]

Don't know about the realities of global warming but reducing emissions steps to reduce effects of global warming is a big money maker.

[rekruler]

(08-20-2014 03:45 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 01:46 PM)Kid Strangelove Wrote:  

If global warming turns out to be a sham, then what do we have to show for it? Oh I know, a better environment that we try to take care of

Not to sound all Dwight Shrute, but...

False. If Anthropic Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions turns out to be a chimera, then we will have spent billions of dollars doing precisely nothing. Meanwhile, very real environmental threats such as excess plastics in the oceans, birth control in the water supply (screwing up the mating rituals of tons of species, not just our own), the increase of rare-earth-metals and mining, possible over-use of industrial fertilizers, irresponsible GMO development, nuclear fallout, and oil spills will fall by the wayside. Our planet will be more messed up because we followed the apocalyptic visions of the IPCC.

I'm agnostic on AGW, leaning towards suspicious - the science never acknowledges the roles of the sun or cosmic radiation in cloud formation, and the process for funding the research seems innately biased. It's the academic equivalent of asking "How often do you beat your wife?" The structure is such that OF COURSE it winds up proving the privileged hypothesis correct.

Far more worrying, however, is that the proposed 'solutions' to Global Warming are obviously ineffectual to anybody who's studied basic economics. Like most socialist/SJW solutions, they actually harm what they're proposing to help, while providing a tidy income for a tiny number of elites who are in charge of the whole thing.

Ergo, I'm left with the political conclusion that - even if the IPCC is right about AGW (and even if they are, that's more attributable to blind luck than intelligence), I must take a stand against the Green movement, because the Green movement is ultimately responsible for destroying the environment.

In other words, to save the planet, we must first destroy the Green movement.

Not to mention that it's precisely those few, precious areas that have escaped human activity that are being defaced with solar panels and wind turbines. "Renewable energy" doesn't even put a dent into global energy demand, but it's all too effective at destroying what little pristine nature there is left. People don't realize just how much sheer surface areas is required to generate electricity using solar or wind power. I once read it's something on the order of covering the entire state of New Jersey in solar panels to generate as much electricity as one nuclear power plant-that is, one building. It's a total farce.

[ElBorrachoInfamoso]

Global warming alarmists claim the ocean is warming. They present data from NOAA's buoys to defend those claims. However, the warming shown by those buoys is a tiny fraction of the margin of error (i.e. not statistically significant) and the warming predicted by the models is far more than the buoys have measured, in fact, it is enough warming to fall within the statistically significant range for those buoys if it was actually measured.

What do the alarmists do? They try very hard to rationalize away this experimental outcome, by building other models to say the heat is hidden in the deep ocean.

This is not science. These people are trying to become the new priesthood.

[Double Salad]

When 'global warming' didn't happen, they had to rename it to 'climate change'.

The elites indoctrinate us for our own future lifestyles of austerity.

The Green Agenda

Some quotes from our parallel government leaders and institutions:

"The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level."
- Al Gore
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

"Agenda 21 is the product of an extensive process of preparation at the professionallevel and negotiation at the political level. It establishes, for the first time, a framework for the systemic, co-operative action required to effect the transition to sustainable development. And its 115 programme areas define the concrete actions required to carry out this transition. In respect of the issues that are still unresolved, I would urge you to ensure that the agreements reached at this historic Summit move us beyond the positions agreed by Governments in previous fora. "
- Maurice Strong,
Opening Speech Rio Earth Summit 1992

[NoMoreTO]

A global laureate physicist defines Global Warming as Pseudo Science.

A couple of ideas I found compelling
- Climate Change can not be questioned, and is more religious than scientific
- questions the tie between CO2 and global warming
- the measurement of the global temperature is not properly distributed around the world
- his calculation with a match increasing CO2 in a large room vs. global warming
- asserts that the earths climate does change on a regular basis

Sad that the environmental movement has been hijacked by global warming now renamed 'climate change'.There are so many actual issues with pollution and local environment that are now tossed aside in favour of a "carbon tax"!