Global warming strikes again...

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, of all the stupid arguments against global warming, I've never understand how scientists are supposed to profit from spreading a "lie" about how us polluting is ruining our environment...

Well, it's not 'big profit' that the scientist is collecting. It's a mere paycheck. The belief is that scientists publish concerns on global warming in order to continue to get funding. And then entrepreneurs lobby for funding of alt.E projects in order to diversify from fossil carbon. So. then the skeptics suggest that we 'follow the money'. It's a fine source of skepticism, and should cause us to look at the claims twice. But one shouldn't be too skeptical, since the alternative theory "known chemistry causes effects" isn't an outrageous claim.

Conversely, we could also 'follow the money' for the skeptics. Because the majority of the economic growth is shuttled upwards, the average person cannot actually perceive how there could be a carbon tax while still undergoing growth. They perceive it as a hit to their wallet. Humans, in general, are terrible at saving money. So, it's hard for us to perceive how paying to switch to alternatives will lead to superior growth in the future. For these two reasons, if we 'follow the money', the average skeptic believes they are paying out-of-pocket. And thus, they've an incentive to be a skeptic.

 

[civman110]

Of course the Sun's cycles affect the weather and climate (note to the skeptics: weather and climate are not the same).

But I've got pictures in my photo album that were taken over 45 years ago in the Rocky Mountains (Canadian Rockies) of some mountains that used to sport some very noticeable glaciers.

Where are those glaciers now? They're significantly smaller, and there's a lot of bare mountain that used to be covered in a thick sheet of ice.

It's cyclical.

NASA has proven that Arctic ice has actually been growing, not declining.

It's also interesting that during this whole debate Obama decided to gut NASA. You may also not know that the Obama's, just like Al Gore stand to make a whole lot of money off of cap and trade if it were ever implemented.

Drowned polar bears aren't found only every 11 years. They're a sad wake up call that there is not enough pack ice up there to support the Arctic's largest land predator.

The polar bear population is way up.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,' it read."

http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-p...something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075

I assure you that I am well aware that the world is not flat. It's really tiresome to be told that environmentalism is a religion.

Judging from the blatantly false claims global warming believers make on a regular basis I'm not so sure about that.

 

[CavLancer]

Out of curiosity, CavLancer, why are you so insistent on being open to being proven wrong when anything that strays from a very simplistic, narrow claim/understanding of climate change is simply hand-waved away as some deep-rooted conspiracy against the masses?

Not only is that defeatist, but wouldn't this conspiracy be rather pointless? The nefarious bigwigs in the environmentalism cult are trying to get us to use sustainable practices and renewable resources so we're not reliant on finite assets. Truly, we have never witnessed such great evil in our midst. Might give Pol Pot a run for his money, aye?

The possibility exists don't you see? We are all blabbing on about something that is still fairly cutting edge. So the 'experts' want their fat grants to prove something that it is chic to go along with, and, God help us, politically effing correct. The rest of us are really trying to figure out what's going on. In such a hodgepodge of rather extraordinary claims of knowing what is going on, its nice to interject a little reality as to maybe being a tad off because, you know, n o b o d y really knows what is happening with climate. Its all a bit 'up in the air' if you will allow. Like the early days of ballooning. The Montgolfier brothers just went up knowing that hot air rises and that what goes up must go down. The notion that its rather chilly up there was yet to find out in the early days.

Yeah, of all the stupid arguments against global warming, I've never understand how scientists are supposed to profit from spreading a "lie" about how us polluting is ruining our environment...

Can't make a centavo if you believe in cooling and go for a grant to prove it.


Also, regarding cherry picking and Arctic ice, there is a place where it is declining, but there are big honkin volcanoes going off underneath. The folks with kids in college who dread the thought they may be wrong and whose paycheck depends on being right point to pictures of that and ignore the expansion of the ice elsewhere.

There are less glaciers in the Alps, because we are in an interglacial and the trend is towards recession of glaciers at such times. It was bloody hot in the 90s, and that was when all the hubub about AGW got started. Since then, been flat even with a lot of tinkering and drama about the polar bears. In fact its getting cooler because the energy reaching the Earth from the sun is declining, and CO2 from your car doesn't get that far.

 

[Synobun]

The possibility exists don't you see? We are all blabbing on about something that is still fairly cutting edge. So the 'experts' want their fat grants to prove something that it is chic to go along with, and, God help us, politically effing correct. The rest of us are really trying to figure out what's going on. In such a hodgepodge of rather extraordinary claims of knowing what is going on, its nice to interject a little reality as to maybe being a tad off because, you know, n o b o d y really knows what is happening with climate. Its all a bit 'up in the air' if you will allow. Like the early days of ballooning. The Montgolfier brothers just went up knowing that hot air rises and that what goes up must go down. The notion that its rather chilly up there was yet to find out in the early days.

How do you expect us to learn more if not for these "fat grants" you lovingly refer to?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

It's cyclical.

NASA has proven that Arctic ice has actually been growing, not declining.

It's also interesting that during this whole debate Obama decided to gut NASA. You may also not know that the Obama's, just like Al Gore stand to make a whole lot of money off of cap and trade if it were ever implemented.

And I should give a damn about what's in Obama's wallet because...?

The polar bear population is way up.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,' it read."

http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-population-higher-20th-century-something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075

An opinion piece that's years out of date and uses the term "alarmists"? Now why don't I think this is an objective, neutral bit of journalism?

Tell the dead polar bears they have nothing to worry about.

Judging from the blatantly false claims global warming believers make on a regular basis I'm not so sure about that.

Right up there with the Creationist Mom on YouTube who rants that environmentalism and recycling are religions, so she's just not gonna "follow their commandments" and put her empty water bottle and juice boxes in the recycling bin. If she won't do it for the environment, why doesn't she do it for the money? Or don't they have recycling depots in the U.S.? We have 3 depots in my city, and I get 25 cents for any pop, milk, or juice container that's 2 liters or more, and 10 cents for the smaller ones. Not sure about what they pay for beer and other alcohol containers since I don't drink.

Or how about the idiotic woman who tried to get the school board to ban teaching about dinosaurs? Apparently dinosaurs never existed, and the fossils were just fakes made by some paleontologists, then buried, and then dug up by other paleontologists who then received "millions and millions of taxpayer dollars" for them. Oh, and besides all that, dinosaurs lead very immoral lives, anyway, so of course they should be removed from the science curriculum.

Both these women home school their kids. What a shame those kids are going to grow up with some of the most bizarre notions I've ever heard of.

 

[civman110]

And I should give a damn about what's in Obama's wallet because...?

Umm, motives, conflicts of interest?

An opinion piece that's years out of date and uses the term "alarmists"? Now why don't I think this is an objective, neutral bit of journalism?

It's quoting an actual environmental study, but I can clearly see that you aren't interested in facts. This is a religion to you.

Right up there with the Creationist Mom on YouTube who rants...

Or how about the idiotic woman who...

And this is relevant how exactly?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Umm, motives, conflicts of interest?

I'm not American. Obama's finances are of no interest to me.

It's quoting an actual environmental study, but I can clearly see that you aren't interested in facts. This is a religion to you.

And this is relevant how exactly?

You're accusing me of following a "religion" and I'm lobbing it right back at you - the "religion" of being an anti-environmentalist. The woman who's convinced that dinosaurs are a hoax is also one of those.

 

[CavLancer]

Scientific conclusions have to be based on facts and observations
Where are you getting these weird ideas of falsifying temperature data in cities from ?

How do you expect us to learn more if not for these "fat grants" you lovingly refer to?

Give grants to determine future climate, not to prove global warming. Great effort should be made to depoliticize thinking, and acting upon, the notion maybe its in fact getting cooler. You see what civman and I have to deal with, just imagine being inside the whole thing? You get applauded for making an article about the impending doom of the Peruvian dormouse due to "climate change", and all your mates will disparage anyone who disagrees. Is that science or the mob? You try to put a rocket on the moon, and results matter. If you become committed to a failed system your rocket keeps blowing up and you lose your job. Climate is different. Their models have failed but no rocket blew up to prove them wrong. They can keep going and going like that bunny until things get so cold that even the thoroughly politically correct cannot deny the truth. Well, that should happen this winter or next spring, unless its a mania or something. Politically correct climate culture demon possession. Of course they will say its so cold because of warming, but will you buy into it? Are people really that dumb? I don't think so.

 

[Synobun]

Give grants to determine future climate, not to prove global warming. Great effort should be made to depoliticize thinking, and acting upon, the notion maybe its in fact getting cooler. You see what civman and I have to deal with, just imagine being inside the whole thing? You get applauded for making an article about the impending doom of the Peruvian dormouse due to "climate change", and all your mates will disparage anyone who disagrees. Is that science or the mob? You try to put a rocket on the moon, and results matter. If you become committed to a failed system your rocket keeps blowing up and you lose your job. Climate is different. Their models have failed but no rocket blew up to prove them wrong. They can keep going and going like that bunny until things get so cold that even the thoroughly politically correct cannot deny the truth. Well, that should happen this winter or next spring, unless its a mania or something. Politically correct climate culture demon possession. Of course they will say its so cold because of warming, but will you buy into it? Are people really that dumb? I don't think so.

If there was meant to be a coherent point in this paragraph of yours, it was lost to me. Something about bunny rabbits and exploding rockets?

 

[CavLancer]

You grasped it.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations 'may now be near historic highs,' it read."

http://www.ibtimes.com/polar-bear-p...something-fishy-about-extinction-fears-821075

I was really interested in reading this, but the link from the article http://www.forecastingprinciples.co...ntent&task=view&id=26&Itemid=129/PolBears.pdf is not good. Need something with credentials if you want to make the claim Polar Bears are not dangerously threatened.

I don't know where I stand on this, honestly. Something tells me the earth has, before, warmed at a rapid rate in select instances, during inter-glacial periods. Maybe it was a bad series of natural events, maybe we, in essence, are a bad series of natural events. It's more important, in any event, to acknowledge the warming trend is happening and work to improve likelihood of human survivors.

 

[civman110]

I'm not American. Obama's finances are of no interest to me.

They should be if there's a clear conflict of interest there. Unless of course this is a religion to you and facts don't matter, only your blind faith in the ideology does.

You're accusing me of following a "religion" and I'm lobbing it right back at you - the "religion" of being an anti-environmentalist. The woman who's convinced that dinosaurs are a hoax is also one of those.

I have proven your claims to be wrong with scientific evidence.

You're the one, like the dinosaur lady, who has repeatedly made false claims and outright rejects scientific research simply because it's not a part of your faith.

 

[CavLancer]

Another thing we haven't discussed is atmospheric compression. "The icy cold of space" Was it Kirk who said this or someone threatening him with something like getting tossed out an airlock? Any Trekkies out there?

 

[civman110]

Well, we better figure this all out soon because according to the Obama Administration Global Warming is the leading cause of terrorism. Well, that and a lack of jobs.

 

[Cheetah]

Heh. It's actually way easier to read this drivel when I'm drunk. Doesn't get me angry.

Give grants to determine future climate, not to prove global warming. Great effort should be made to depoliticize thinking, and acting upon, the notion maybe its in fact getting cooler.

You're able to grasp that people don't apply for a grant to "prove global warming", but instead apply for grants on specific topics that may be related to the climate, right?

And that there are tons of things to do research on, so there will always be grants given for research?

And that very, very few studies indicates that there may be stabilizing trends, much less cooling trends, in Earth's climate?

 

[CavLancer]

They don't get the job unless they believe the mantra.

Well, we better figure this all out soon because according to the Obama Administration Global Warming is the leading cause of terrorism. Well, that and a lack of jobs.

History in the making. Obama is a lame duck, lets see what if anything Trump actually does.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

Another thing we haven't discussed is atmospheric compression. "The icy cold of space" Was it Kirk who said this or someone threatening him with something like getting tossed out an airlock? Any Trekkies out there?

Atmospheric compression events aren't a real thing. It's an observation of relative values but with a misunderstanding of cause.

 

[Cheetah]

They don't get the job unless they believe the mantra.

...

Scientists are skeptical. As long as people can give scientific reasoning for their hypotheses, there aren't any problems. If they just throw around baseless drivel, then they're bad scientists, and probably shouldn't be given grants or jobs.

Again, there's LOTS of stuff to do research on, and NO REASON for anyone to build up a baseless lie. Science is full of discredited ideas and inventions which were proven false. Why do you think that a false idea about global warming should be different?

 

[CavLancer]

According to quantum physics none of anything is actually real so it will fit right in won't it?

...

Scientists are skeptical. As long as people can give scientific reasoning for their hypotheses, there aren't any problems. If they just throw around baseless drivel, then they're bad scientists, and probably shouldn't be given grants or jobs.

Again, there's LOTS of stuff to do research on, and NO REASON for anyone to build up a baseless lie. Science is full of discredited ideas and inventions which were proven false. Why do you think that a false idea about global warming should be different?

If they believe there is cooling, forget it. If they already have a job and say there may be cooling, they lose their job.

 

[AppleDumplingHead]

According to quantum physics none of anything is actually real so it will fit right in won't it?

That's a bit of a play on words. If a baseball at a game is coming at your face, I strongly encourage you to put your hand up and catch or deflect it.