[Uzisuicide]

Solar activity is low. While most alarmists are on the warming side, I've been more worried about a cooling trend. Amazing how warming alarmists blame a trace gas in our atmosphere for the earths warming but totally ignore the Sun that occupies 99.86% of all the mass in our solar system. If we are indeed headed to a new "Maunder" or "Dalton" Minimum, then we'll be freezing our asses off for many more winters to come. The old 'warming' models of yesteryear were all wrong. On a long enough timeline, the bullshit starts walking. Anyway, check out the article. It gave me a new awe and appreciation of the sun. It reminds me again of just how small man is.

http://vencoreweather.com/2015/02/17/29475/

Quote: "Finally, if history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere - and where we all live. There have been two notable historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton, and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth."

[Guitarman]

Uzi, great post. If you haven't done so already, read the book "The Chilling Stars" by Nigel Calder ( former editor of New Scientist) and the Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark. This book is surprisingly accessible even to the layman " non scientist". Svensmark has also confirmed the mechanism of his theory of cosmic ray cloud seeding at the CERN supercollider. Add Cosmoclimatogy to the other theories of the impact of ocean cycles on climate (PDO, AMO and El Niño La Niña frequency) and you have an explanation of 20th century warming with no need to blame CO2.

I like to think of this as "red pill climatology"....

[scorpion]

The whole anthropogenic global warming thing always struck me as rather ridiculous. The difference between standing in snow up to your waist and sweating in 90 degree heat (winter and summer) is due entirely to the tilt of the Earth's axis being away from or toward the Sun. That's it. That enormous temperature and weather difference is caused simply by the tilt of the Earth. This makes it painfully obvious that the various temperature/intensity fluctuations of the Sun itself must have far more to do with our climate than any factor originating on Earth, whether man-made or naturally occurring.

[aSimpNamedBrokeback]

So the earth's temp is rising despite a weak Solar Cycle?

If you're bored check out the PBS Nature Episode about the Invasion of the Killer Whales. The camera shots of the rock mountains along the coast make it worth the watch. Basically its about the melting ice in the Arctic now allowing Killer Whales access to areas they have never been seen before. Unfortunately they are slaughtering the Narwhals, who until recently faced no threat from predators, other than the Inuit.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/invasion-...ode/11322/

[kosko]

(02-18-2015 03:27 PM)aSimpNamedBrokeback Wrote:  

So the earth's temp is rising despite a weak Solar Cycle?

If you're bored check out the PBS Nature Episode about the Invasion of the Killer Whales. The camera shots of the rock mountains along the coast make it worth the watch. Basically its about the melting ice in the Arctic now allowing Killer Whales access to areas they have never been seen before. Unfortunately they are slaughtering the Narwhals, who until recently faced no threat from predators, other than the Inuit.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/invasion-...ode/11322/

No as temperatures have been trending downwards. And temperature projections have been below what the IPC has foretasted with their models. The earth is getting colder slightly, not warmer.

[Guitarman]

"So the earth's temp is rising despite a weak Solar Cycle?"

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/no...-8-months/


What could be happening is that global temperatures are at a peak at the moment and will soon decline. Hence no warming for 18 years is actually the levelling off of the temperature rise before it drops. The global warming that did happen corresponds very well to elevated solar activity in the late 20th century. Solar activity - sun spots - has reduced greatly over the past two cycles. The reason the temp hasn't immediately dropped is due to inertia in the system (the oceans hold a certain amount of heat and tend to buffer increases or decreases due to changes in solar activity.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(02-18-2015 03:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The whole anthropogenic global warming thing always struck me as rather ridiculous. The difference between standing in snow up to your waist and sweating in 90 degree heat (winter and summer) is due entirely to the tilt of the Earth's axis being away from or toward the Sun. That's it. That enormous temperature and weather difference is caused simply by the tilt of the Earth. This makes it painfully obvious that the various temperature/intensity fluctuations of the Sun itself must have far more to do with our climate than any factor originating on Earth, whether man-made or naturally occurring.

The global warming scam is a big one perpetrated for a long time already.

I am old enough to remember when we were taught in school about the global warming cycles which created much hotter temperatures around the time of Jesus and then around the year 1000. Greenland back then was green. So not only are the long-term statistics faked, but since there has been no warming for 18 years, then they have now started faking temperature statistics globally.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/01/...ch-bigger/

Currently there is a cooling phase going on and to be honest - we all would rather benefit from warmer weather instead of colder one. We have barely left the mini-ice age between 1400 and 1750 behind. Too bad it looks as if we are entering a colder naturally created climate. The sunspot activity does not surprise me. I have read reports by "dissenting" climatologists who stated years ago that the sun-activity has 100x more influence on global climate than all current human activities combined.

   

I am not old enough to have read The Times in the 1970s, but I can read it now - I am certain they would have wished they picked the global cooling by now instead of the warming. They changed the term to climate change, but even that seems to not pan out and the new term seems to be climate disruption - whatever that means because Hurricanes were much more common in the 1930s.

Here a good site: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02...rmism.html




Here funny - climatologist Schneider covering Global Cooling in the 1970s and then the same Dr. Schneider on Global Warming in 2008:

http://polarbearscience.com/2013/07/15/g...ince-2001/
http://www.canadanorthoutfitting.com/polar_bear.shtml

Of course polar bear populations have been rising so much that they are even offering hunting expeditions for tourists in Canada. I am against hunting for sport, but hey - you cannot be on one side concerned about Global Warming and the polar bears drowning and on the other side allow them to be hunted down. Meanwhile you claim that polar bears are declining and we all have to pay carbon taxes.

The scam is excellent though.


And here they are finally admitting what it is all about - apart of course to reduce consumption for the lower 95% who won't be able to afford travel, gasoline, heating, energy, food etc. as much as before.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree...ate-change

Quote:

It might seem unethical but someone has to get rich fighting climate change

Indeed - someone has to get rich(er) scamming the public. Then why not them?

[Uzisuicide]

I felt pretty small and insignificant when thinking about the whole article. Amazing how arrogant and narcissistic people are to think that if the planet changes it's because of them. There's a specific reason that the sun has been largely left out of this debate over these long years. It's because if the sun is to blame for "climate change" then people wouldn't feel compelled to buy carbon credits or be taxed on energy usage (as if that would make a difference anyway). Simply put, there would be no money to be made off of it. If we all killed ourselves before the industrial revolution there would be no noticeable difference in the earths climate either way. Dust in the wind...

[speakeasy]

(02-18-2015 03:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The whole anthropogenic global warming thing always struck me as rather ridiculous. The difference between standing in snow up to your waist and sweating in 90 degree heat (winter and summer) is due entirely to the tilt of the Earth's axis being away from or toward the Sun. That's it. That enormous temperature and weather difference is caused simply by the tilt of the Earth. This makes it painfully obvious that the various temperature/intensity fluctuations of the Sun itself must have far more to do with our climate than any factor originating on Earth, whether man-made or naturally occurring.

Wow. And somehow this simplistic explanation has slipped by the overwhelming majority of scientists that have studied atmospheric science their entire lives.

Please learn the difference between short-term variation and long-term variation. I could also argue that it's cool at night and hot during the day, thus global warming is invalided because the sun causes all the diurnal variation in temperature.

At this point it's like arguing with evolution denialists. It's really only in America that people are denying this(global warming or evolution). Outside of here, these ideas are laughable. And doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every.single.person that denies climate change is coincidentally a libertarian or conservative? Isn't science based on empirical fact? There is no political bias in anything STEM. So why do people on the right deny the only ones that can't seem to believe it? Could it be that THEY are the ones who are politically motivated?

NASA responds to Scorpion's query on the 3rd line down:

http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

[TheWastelander]

I don't know who or what the hell to believe on this issue. I was interested, but I started tuning out when Al Gore started pimping global warming stuff. They made a mistake choosing a corrupt, polarizing political figure like him to present their views.

Quote:

And doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every.single.person that denies climate change is coincidentally a libertarian or conservative? Isn't science based on empirical fact? There is no political bias in anything STEM. So why do people on the right deny the only ones that can't seem to believe it? Could it be that THEY are the ones who are politically motivated?

Bullshit, there isn't. Scientists cater to the people who pay them. Those that rely on grants study what the government wants them to and shit that might lead to un-PC findings isn't studied at all.

The problem with the climate change crowd is that they have a bunch of overzealous leftists on their side who hype it up and want to introduce radical schemes, taxation, and other bullshit programs as a solution. They're watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside. They are intellectually dishonest, often argue in bad faith, etc. yet I'm supposed to completely trust them this one time and accept what they say as gospel.

The climate change crowd has a PR problem. They embraced the left (or the left embraced them) so I'm naturally skeptical given their track record.

[speakeasy]

(02-18-2015 04:59 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I don't know who or what the hell to believe on this issue. I was interested, but I started tuning out when Al Gore started pimping global warming stuff. They made a mistake choosing a corrupt, polarizing political figure like him to present their views.

Quote:

And doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every.single.person that denies climate change is coincidentally a libertarian or conservative? Isn't science based on empirical fact? There is no political bias in anything STEM. So why do people on the right deny the only ones that can't seem to believe it? Could it be that THEY are the ones who are politically motivated?

Bullshit, there isn't. Scientists cater to the people who pay them. Those that rely on grants study what the government wants them to and shit that might lead to un-PC findings isn't studied at all.

The problem with the climate change crowd is that they have a bunch of overzealous leftists on their side who hype it up and want to introduce radical schemes, taxation, and other bullshit programs as a solution. They're watermelons. Green on the outside and red on in the inside. They are intellectually dishonest, often argue in bad faith, etc. yet I'm supposed to completely trust them this one time and accept what they say as gospel.

The climate change crowd has a PR problem. They embraced the left (or the left embraced them) so I'm naturally skeptical given their track record.

Sounds like the bias is coming from YOU. Because you don't like the findings, you go off into conspiracy land where there's this collusion between scientists and big government liberals who supposedly want to use science as a cover to raise your taxes.

Okay buddy. All across the world, ALL of them are in this grand scheme. Rather than dream up conspiracies, it would be more effective to point out where the science is actually faulty, preferable with some peer-reviewed resources.

[Foolsgo1d]

Anyone who thinks mankind has a serious impact upon this ball of rock we inhabit need to take in a few facts.

Stars light years away can have an impact on our planet. The one in our solar system could burn it to a crisp if fluctuations occur.

May be because it isn't at the forefront of peoples minds unless it is burning them on holiday but the Sun has never been mentioned in global climate change documentaries or media reports. Whilst I hate pollution, the primary gas of carbon dioxide is needed to create a thick atmosphere and sustain plant life.

[speakeasy]

(02-18-2015 06:00 PM)Foolsgo1d Wrote:  

Anyone who thinks mankind has a serious impact upon this ball of rock we inhabit need to take in a few facts.

Stars light years away can have an impact on our planet. The one in our solar system could burn it to a crisp if fluctuations occur.

Dude, just look at the chart I posted above. Sun fluctuations have NOTHING to do with the warming trends we're seeing. The sun is a very stable star, the fluctuations are relatively minor and don't explain what we're seeing, and the warming trends correlate to the amount of greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere since the industrial age. Which is something you can measure by taking ice-core samples.

[Only One Man]

95% of scientists agree that the earth is warming and that human activity is contributing to it. That being said, it may not necessarily be that bad.

Joe Rogan did a podcast last spring with this guy named Randall Carlson who basically said that global warming is preferential to global cooling, as ice ages and mini ice ages were responsible for wiping out huge percentages of the human population throughout history. He also said that ground, air and water pollution is potentially much worse for our planet than the actual slight warming that we have had a hand in causing. If you have a few hours or a long commute or something, it is a very interesting listen.

Here's the youtube link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R31SXuFeX0A

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(02-18-2015 06:08 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

Dude, just look at the chart I posted above. Sun fluctuations have NOTHING to do with the warming trends we're seeing. The sun is a very stable star, the fluctuations are relatively minor and don't explain what we're seeing, and the warming trends correlate to the amount of greenhouse gases being put into the atmosphere since the industrial age. Which is something you can measure by taking ice-core samples.

NASA - very funny indeed:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/...integrity/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/en...-ever.html

Surface data is being tampered on global scale:

http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/2015...-lies.html

How data changed: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015...isputable/



vs.



____





data is being systematically changed just to fit the narrative - you cannot even explain it away by claiming that data from the 1930s was differently published in 1999 than in 2014.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015...bs-excuse/


_________

Nowadays since there is no man-made global warming happening, then they have resorted to closing temperature stations in rural areas and just adding the "surface data" from cities, which is of course warmer.

Here a nice talk by Christopher Monckton - he is an inventor and ardent supporter of the real scientific method.

And the whole 95/97% consensus rating is even fake: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1000142405...2813553136

In the initial reports all "scientists" were counted among the consensus - economists, engineers, mathematicians etc. Even among climatologists there is not even a 75% consensus - and this is a group that has to survive on grants by multi-billion-dollar foundations and university chairs.

There is literally so much credible information to the contrary of the global warming scam, that it is amazing if anyone remains believing in it. (That is unless there is someone who has a lot to gain from it - in that case I respect that at least from a business perspective.) And I refuse to change it's name of Global Warming - also I refuse to accept their changed explanations that winters are going to become colder now despite them blasting us with statements that children won't see snow anymore in most countries.

[Seth_Rose]

(02-18-2015 04:59 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

I don't know who or what the hell to believe on this issue. I was interested, but I started tuning out when Al Gore started pimping global warming stuff. They made a mistake choosing a corrupt, polarizing political figure like him to present their views.

Quote:

And doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every.single.person that denies climate change is coincidentally a libertarian or conservative? Isn't science based on empirical fact? There is no political bias in anything STEM. So why do people on the right deny the only ones that can't seem to believe it? Could it be that THEY are the ones who are politically motivated?

Bullshit, there isn't. Scientists cater to the people who pay them. Those that rely on grants study what the government wants them to and shit that might lead to un-PC findings isn't studied at all.

The problem with the climate change crowd is that they have a bunch of overzealous leftists on their side who hype it up and want to introduce radical schemes, taxation, and other bullshit programs as a solution. They're watermelons. Green on the outside and red on the inside. They are intellectually dishonest, often argue in bad faith, etc. yet I'm supposed to completely trust them this one time and accept what they say as gospel.

The climate change crowd has a PR problem. They embraced the left (or the left embraced them) so I'm naturally skeptical given their track record.

I think you answered your own question.

Some may say conservatives and libertarians are delusional, but the reality is that the biggest proponents of Global Warming are the left and it's institutions:

-US Government: Check
-Media: Check
-Schools and Academia: Check

When all 3 of these institutions are pushing something in 2015, I'm inclined to believe the exact opposite. Also, people who believe in Global Warming haven't deduced their beliefs because of doing their own research, but rather because all of the above institutions have pushed it on them.

I remember in high school we HAD to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth'. I was honestly scared shitless and thought the Earth would be ending during my lifetime. When I got home from school that day I told my dad what I watched and he laughed. I thought how dare he, but over the years have come to his side. If you really look at the numbers (that aren't skewed by climatologists to keep up their funding), there hasn't been any significant changes in temperatures over the years.

Global warming is nothing more than a scheme that government and academia are pushing forth in order to extract tax dollars from the populace and for fear mongering purposes. I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist, but that seems the only logical explanation.

Or God forbid there actually is man-made Global Warming. I think we should do everything we can to take care of the environment regardless, but that is no excuse to shove this nonsense down the throats of people all over the world.

And cities around the US may be hitting record lows in temperature tonight; how's that for 'An Inconvenient Truth?'

Edit: I got so caught up in the debate I forgot what the OP was about! Yes, I do think we will be seeing some cooling over the next few decades. And if there is any man-made global warming the lack of sun spots should mitigate any of its effects. Then over the next few decades we can come up with technology to protect our environment.

[RoastBeefCurtains4Me]

The satellite temperature readings show no changes in temperature at all, but they only go back a few decades. Surface readings go back over 100 years, but there are two problems with these.

First, temperature stations that were founded out in the middle of nowhere have remained in the same place, even though now they're in a suburban area, next to a parking lot and an A/C unit dumping heat

Secondly, scientists trying to ensure they keep getting that sweet, sweet global warming research money have actually gone back and altered the temperature numbers they use from old temperature readings, to make it seem cooler then, and by comparison, warmer now.

This is easily confirmed
http://www.surfacestations.org/

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sur...gs+altered

In comparison, the mini ice age was a very big deal. Greenland used to be much warmer than it is now (it was even green), but then the mini ice age struck. In some ways, we are still coming out of it, although we're holding steady in recent decades.

Temperature levels do go up and down over the centuries, but much of the current climate controversy is based on hyped and falsified data, which is becoming more and more evident. The pro-global warmists hide the data they use, and refuse to release the procedure they use to analyze the data. They do this because they are frauds, and they want to hide their work so it can't be examined. The global warming skeptic watchdog groups like the ones behind http://www.surfacestations.org publish every bit of their data.

[speakeasy]

I've heard the arguments of the deniers. It's in general just pretty weak shit. It's like listening to feminists screaming that there's no difference between men and women when science overwhelmingly shows the contrary. But no matter what they are just going to keep believing it regardless.

Many of these deniers when scratch the surface are just hired shills for oil companies.

You claim up above that some stations inaccurately recorded temperatures. What about the ocean temps? Those are all faked too I guess?

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/c...matechange

The 97% figure sounds legit to me. How many peer-reviewed studies are coming from the anti-global warming side vs the opposite? Occam's razor makes this about as slam dunk as it's going to get.

[weambulance]

(02-18-2015 04:56 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 03:08 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

The whole anthropogenic global warming thing always struck me as rather ridiculous. The difference between standing in snow up to your waist and sweating in 90 degree heat (winter and summer) is due entirely to the tilt of the Earth's axis being away from or toward the Sun. That's it. That enormous temperature and weather difference is caused simply by the tilt of the Earth. This makes it painfully obvious that the various temperature/intensity fluctuations of the Sun itself must have far more to do with our climate than any factor originating on Earth, whether man-made or naturally occurring.

Wow. And somehow this simplistic explanation has slipped by the overwhelming majority of scientists that have studied atmospheric science their entire lives.

Please learn the difference between short-term variation and long-term variation. I could also argue that it's cool at night and hot during the day, thus global warming is invalided because the sun causes all the diurnal variation in temperature.

At this point it's like arguing with evolution denialists. It's really only in America that people are denying this(global warming or evolution). Outside of here, these ideas are laughable. And doesn't anyone find it peculiar that every.single.person that denies climate change is coincidentally a libertarian or conservative? Isn't science based on empirical fact? There is no political bias in anything STEM. So why do people on the right deny the only ones that can't seem to believe it? Could it be that THEY are the ones who are politically motivated?

NASA responds to Scorpion's query on the 3rd line down:

http://climate.nasa.gov/faq/

The bold statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking absurd. The data has been massaged so hard it's black and blue, and it's funny how it's always massaged to show warming. I've seen the data, I've seen the corrections. Describing what they've done as "good science" makes me want to puke.

You want to know where we're at on anthropogenic global warming, really? It's simple: we don't know. We can not accurately model climate systems.

Even if all their corrections were in the right direction, the warming they're claiming has happened is within the margin of error of those calculations.

Even if warming is occurring, there's no evidence at all that that's a bad thing. Milder winters and longer growing seasons? Only pussies want those!

The Earth has gone through many warm-cold cycles. Two words: Milankovitch cycles.

The Earth has also gone through many periods of elevated CO2 and somehow all life on Earth didn't die off, nor did the planet turn into a big desert or whatever other alarmist scenario they're peddling these days.

My conclusion, based on all the data I've seen, is that global warming is a "maybe, we don't know", man causing global warming is another "maybe, we don't know", and if global warming is happening, my feeling is "I'm not worried about it."

I'm a geologist.

[EnemyCombatant]

snip

[speakeasy]

(02-18-2015 09:04 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

The bold statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking absurd. The data has been massaged so hard it's black and blue, and it's funny how it's always massaged to show warming. I've seen the data, I've seen the corrections. Describing what they've done as "good science" makes me want to puke.

You want to know where we're at on anthropogenic global warming, really? It's simple: we don't know. We can not accurately model climate systems.

I think there's more than enough data to know that it's happening and to know that it's correlated to greenhouse gases. There may be questions as to how much the temps will rise and establishing a time-frame and pinpointing what parts of the world will get hit the most, but the scientific community, on the whole does not deny that global warming is happening. The most reputable agencies stand behind it.

Quote:

Even if warming is occurring, there's no evidence at all that that's a bad thing. Milder winters and longer growing seasons? Only pussies want those!

That's misleading. It may mean you grow crops at higher latitudes, but it also means some places at lower latitudes that supported agriculture will become desertified. Look at what's happening in California, for example. The climate is gradually becoming drier. A lot of cities are flat and low lying on the coast and will be effected by even a small rise in ocean levels, e.g. NYC, Bangkok, Miami, New Orleans.

Quote:

The Earth has gone through many warm-cold cycles. Two words: Milankovitch cycles.

True, but these past cycles took place over tens of thousands of years. The warming we are seeing now is happening in the course of decades. Which by geological standards is just crazy.

Quote:

The Earth has also gone through many periods of elevated CO2 and somehow all life on Earth didn't die off, nor did the planet turn into a big desert or whatever other alarmist scenario they're peddling these days.

Not ALL life, but changes in climate have led to extinctions of SOME life.


To everyone reading this thread, this site beautifully destroys every global warming skeptic argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

At this point I can't even believe there's still debate on this topic. There's as much evidence for global warming as there is for evolution.

[TheWastelander]

(02-18-2015 09:39 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(02-18-2015 09:04 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

The bold statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, fucking absurd. The data has been massaged so hard it's black and blue, and it's funny how it's always massaged to show warming. I've seen the data, I've seen the corrections. Describing what they've done as "good science" makes me want to puke.

You want to know where we're at on anthropogenic global warming, really? It's simple: we don't know. We can not accurately model climate systems.

I think there's more than enough data to know that it's happening and to know that it's correlated to greenhouse gases. There may be questions as to how much the temps will rise and establishing a time-frame and pinpointing what parts of the world will get hit the most, but the scientific community, on the whole does not deny that global warming is happening. The most reputable agencies stand behind it.

Quote:

Even if warming is occurring, there's no evidence at all that that's a bad thing. Milder winters and longer growing seasons? Only pussies want those!

That's misleading. It may mean you grow crops at higher latitudes, but it also means some places at lower latitudes that supported agriculture will become desertified. Look at what's happening in California, for example. The climate is gradually becoming drier. A lot of cities are flat and low lying on the coast and will be effected by even a small rise in ocean levels, e.g. NYC, Bangkok, Miami, New Orleans.

Quote:

The Earth has gone through many warm-cold cycles. Two words: Milankovitch cycles.

True, but these past cycles took place over tens of thousands of years. The warming we are seeing now is happening in the course of decades. Which by geological standards is just crazy.

Quote:

The Earth has also gone through many periods of elevated CO2 and somehow all life on Earth didn't die off, nor did the planet turn into a big desert or whatever other alarmist scenario they're peddling these days.

Not ALL life, but changes in climate have led to extinctions of SOME life.


To everyone reading this thread, this site beautifully destroys every global warming skeptic argument: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

At this point I can't even believe there's still debate on this topic. There's as much evidence for global warming as there is for evolution.

Thanks for the link. Not many people know, including myself, what exactly is going on because of all the conflicting information. We have people on the left doing what you're doing "OMG HOW COULD YOU NOT KNOW THIS OR AGREE WITH ME?" and people on the right saying it doesn't exist.

I don't know, but I want to know. Patience and presenting solid information is better at convincing people than condescension.

[Matt Forney]

If global warming/climate change believers were even remotely serious about their beliefs, they'd be advocating for a) an end to immigration to the U.S. and b) initiatives to lower the birthrate in third-world countries.

More people = more problems. More people in the U.S. means more energy usage, aka more greenhouse gases. Not only that, the countries that are sending the wretched refuse of their teeming shores to America, such as Mexico, couldn't give two flying fucks about how they're polluting the Earth.

Anyone who's spent time in a second- or third-world country knows what I'm talking about. The Philippines, where I lived for part of last year, is an environmentalist's worst nightmare. No pollution controls on cars means that there's tons of exhaust and smog in places like Manila, like L.A. circa 1962. People burn garbage with no regard for the toxins they're pumping into the air. When I was there, my eyes adjusted to the dusty, smoggy air so thoroughly that when I went back to the U.S., my eyes were tearing up due to all the excess moisture they were producing to compensate for the Philippines' disgusting air quality (and how the moisture was no longer needed).

The fact of the matter is that environmentalism and global warming are bugaboos that only first-worlders and white people care about. The immigrants coming into the U.S. want to live the American Dream, which entails being able to make enough money to drive a gas-guzzling car and own a home with central AC. They're more opposed to environmental restrictions then the most rabid right-wing Republican.

As for the population issue, lowering the global birthrate would be easy. Tie foreign aid to fertility rate: countries that lower their birthrate by a certain percentage get more aid money. Require that women on welfare back home get IUDs so they can't have more kids that they can't afford. BAM! Problem solved.

Forget whether climate change is real or not, or whether it's man-made. These two measures---ending immigration and cutting the global fertility rate---would do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions then all the Catholic indulgence---er, I mean "carbon credits" in the world.

The fact that not a single global warming Chicken Little is calling for either indicates that they are completely full of shit.

[weambulance]

Shrug. I've spent dozens of hours learning about this specific subject, speakeasy, after going about halfway to a masters in geology, during which I focused heavily on geochemistry. Nothing you're saying is new to me, and it's certainly not persuasive.

Believe what you want, but I am not inclined to spend 12 hours writing a comprehensive explanation of my position that you'd just ignore anyway.

You shout about biases, but you've obviously already made up your mind and are not going to change it.

By the way, I glanced through that site and a lot of what they're presenting as the truth is flat out wrong, though it's presented in a persuasive way. Citing a paper doesn't mean that paper isn't bullshit, and extrapolating global trends from point studies is obvious crap.

[Only One Man]

(02-18-2015 10:10 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

If global warming/climate change believers were even remotely serious about their beliefs, they'd be advocating for a) an end to immigration to the U.S. and b) initiatives to lower the birthrate in third-world countries.

More people = more problems. More people in the U.S. means more energy usage, aka more greenhouse gases. Not only that, the countries that are sending the wretched refuse of their teeming shores to America, such as Mexico, couldn't give two flying fucks about how they're polluting the Earth.

Anyone who's spent time in a second- or third-world country knows what I'm talking about. The Philippines, where I lived for part of last year, is an environmentalist's worst nightmare. No pollution controls on cars means that there's tons of exhaust and smog in places like Manila, like L.A. circa 1962. People burn garbage with no regard for the toxins they're pumping into the air. When I was there, my eyes adjusted to the dusty, smoggy air so thoroughly that when I went back to the U.S., my eyes were tearing up due to all the excess moisture they were producing to compensate for the Philippines' disgusting air quality (and how the moisture was no longer needed).

The fact of the matter is that environmentalism and global warming are bugaboos that only first-worlders and white people care about. The immigrants coming into the U.S. want to live the American Dream, which entails being able to make enough money to drive a gas-guzzling car and own a home with central AC. They're more opposed to environmental restrictions then the most rabid right-wing Republican.

As for the population issue, lowering the global birthrate would be easy. Tie foreign aid to fertility rate: countries that lower their birthrate by a certain percentage get more aid money. Require that women on welfare back home get IUDs so they can't have more kids that they can't afford. BAM! Problem solved.

Forget whether climate change is real or not, or whether it's man-made. These two measures---ending immigration and cutting the global fertility rate---would do more to curb greenhouse gas emissions then all the Catholic indulgence---er, I mean "carbon credits" in the world.

The fact that not a single global warming Chicken Little is calling for either indicates that they are completely full of shit.

I'm glad first-worlders and white people care about environmentalism or we would be breathing that poisonous air like you described in the Philippines.