Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[Strange Brew]

Interesting rebuttal of the "hottest year on record" claim

http://thefederalist.com/2015/01/19/global-warming-most-dishonest-year-on-record/

From the article.

“In the tiny little blip of geological time for which we have accurate surface temperature records, last year was pretty much the same as 2005 and 2010, continuing a plateau of global temperatures that has lasted nearly 20 years.”

So while the past two decades were less than one degree warmer than the mean of the last 140 years the Earth is NOT heating at an accelerated rate. These factual observations are in stark contrast to the dire predictions made a decade ago by the same "scientists" asking for our trust now. Sorry climate "scientists" you blew your credibility on this matter.

[Masterofreality]

January 20 and it's snowing in Cleveland today.

Sounds about right to me.

And Strange, THAT is a great article. Thanks for posting.

[paulxu]

January 20th and it's 70 in Spartanburg, SC.

That's about 15 degrees higher than average.

[American X]

DePaul is combating climate change with trees. Noble warriors there at DePaul. Trees.

[Masterofreality]

DePaul is combating climate change with trees. Noble warriors there at DePaul. Trees.

Good. We need more oxygen.

Oh, but trees need CO2. That is the main global warmer right? If we stop Carbon Dioxide, trees die, right?

Right?

[XU-PA]

Good. We need more oxygen.

Oh, but trees need CO2. That is the main global warmer right? If we stop Carbon Dioxide, trees die, right?

Right?

You must be in congress

[muskienick]

Good. We need more oxygen.

Oh, but trees need CO2. That is the main global warmer right? If we stop Carbon Dioxide, trees die, right?

Right?

That is some of the least scientific (there is a glut of CO2 in the atmosphere now) and circuitous logic ever heard! There's enough CO2 in the air now that the entire surface of the Earth's land area could be covered with plants that "feed" themselves by photosynthesis. (Just not all trees.)

[bobbiemcgee]

70 and golf today in Denver. NYC not looking too good.

[MADXSTER]

75% of the oxygen comes from the ocean, so we need to pump the CO2 into the ocean. Better yet, lets just throw Jay Bilas and Dickie V into the ocean. Problem solved. #GENIUS

[Masterofreality]

70 and golf today in Denver. NYC not looking too good.

Well I guess that evens out what Denver had in November, huh?

"Many other records were set for the coldest temperatures (highs or lows) so early in the season, including:

- Denver: Lows of -13 on Nov. 12 and -14 on Nov. 13"

[ammtd34]

I don't particularly care about global warming or climate change, but am trying to educate myself on the subject. Someone like Randall Carlson makes a lot of sense to me and I'd like to find someone to counter him.

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/ask-randall-climate-change

[Masterofreality]

I don't particularly care about global warming or climate change, but am trying to educate myself on the subject. Someone like Randall Carlson makes a lot of sense to me and I'd like to find someone to counter him.

http://sacredgeometryinternational.com/ask-randall-climate-change

Damn. That is very impressive....except probably to the "Climate Change Consortium".

[waggy]

For anyone that doesn't want to read the linked article, here is the moniest of the money paragraphs:


"I want to make it clear that I do believe humans are affecting the climate. However, that being said, it is evident that the extent of this effect is questionable. The climate of the Earth is an extraordinarily complex system. To claim, as many proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming do, that the debate on climate change is over, is simply absurd and potentially dangerous as well. The reaction on the part of AGW proponents to legitimate scientific skepticism is quite disgraceful, in my opinion. To refer to anyone who questions AGW dogmas— such as the claim that there is a ‘consensus’ amongst all climate scientists, or the claim that the debate on climate change is over— as a climate change ‘denier’ in an effort to associate them with Holocaust deniers, or ‘industry stooges’ secretly funded by an insidious cabal of professional sowers of doubt, is nothing more than a cowardly tactic to avoid real debate. Many respected climate scientists have been slandered by AGW advocates simply because their research contradicts the claim that humans are the sole cause of climate change. It is vitally important that we learn to differentiate between the science of climate change and the politics of climate change. These are two very different animals. The proponents of AGW as a political agenda are advocating policies that would mandate virtually complete control of the global economy by bureaucratic elites in the name of controlling carbon emissions. However, the command and control systems they advocate will do nothing to prevent the climate from changing naturally, as it has done repeatedly throughout the history of the Earth, but will do everything to stifle freedom and the real progress that can eventually diminish our reliance on fossil fuels. Just as we should be skeptical of industry funded research, so we should be equally skeptical of government funded research, and at this writing the funding for the IPCC is many times greater than all verified industry funding put together, in spite of the claims of the AGW faction. A bit of investigative research will confirm the veracity of this assertion."

[paulxu]

For anyone that doesn't want to read the linked article, here is the moniest of the money paragraphs:

"Just as we should be skeptical of industry funded research, so we should be equally skeptical of government funded research, and at this writing the funding for the IPCC is many times greater than all verified industry funding put together, in spite of the claims of the AGW faction. A bit of investigative research will confirm the veracity of this assertion."

Wags, haven't had time to read the article yet, but thought I would follow up on the last sentence above.

The Wall Street Journal pegs the annual budget of IPCC at around 7 million, with the US supplying less than 1/2 of it.

As far as industry funding in opposition, it far outstrips the spending on the IPCC (which you might have guessed). Sort of makes me question the veracity of the entire article. That funding by just a few notable groups/people is around 40 million/year. Probably much higher as not all industry contributors are noted.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Maybe the confusion comes from the author's lack of understanding of the IPCC. While there is a lot of funded research on climate change by many scientists and organizations, the IPCC does no research itself, but produces reports based on peer reviewed, and non peer reviewed, research from multiple disciplines on the climate issue.

Maybe I should be skeptical about the claims the article is making.

[waggy]

Wags, haven't had time to read the article yet, but thought I would follow up on the last sentence above.

The Wall Street Journal pegs the annual budget of IPCC at around 7 million, with the US supplying less than 1/2 of it.

As far as industry funding in opposition, it far outstrips the spending on the IPCC (which you might have guessed). Sort of makes me question the veracity of the entire article. That funding by just a few notable groups/people is around 40 million/year. Probably much higher as not all industry contributors are noted.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network

Maybe the confusion comes from the author's lack of understanding of the IPCC. While there is a lot of funded research on climate change by many scientists and organizations, the IPCC does no research itself, but produces reports based on peer reviewed, and non peer reviewed, research from multiple disciplines on the climate issue.

Maybe I should be skeptical about the claims the article is making.


Is skepticism the new deflection? :whistle:

The Guardian is just a politicization story. It's exactly what the paragraph I posted spoke to. Which tells me that you're not really understanding (or don't care or don't agree with) the article. It also tells me that you LOVE that this issue is politicized. You think it's great that global governments are spending (and skimming) other peoples money. Nevermind that it might just be nothing but a giant fucking lie.

I mean 0.8 degrees, maybe. Go suck a tailpipe.

Yeah, maybe you should read the article.

And a link for the WSJ report please.

[RealDeal]

So besides being a Freemason, which I guess is impressive, who is this guy and what are his qualifications?

[waggy]

He's a renegade scholar. :pointandlaugh:

[Strange Brew]

Interesting debate recently. It's nice to see instead of the science is settled nonsense.

Here's a good article from a former advocate of AGW who's become more of a skeptic and frankly espouses similar views to those I hold on the subject (admittedly, I've a been a bit of a bomb thrower on the skeptic side to counter the extreme views of those who label those question "deniers").

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climate-lukewarmer.aspx

[paulxu]

Wags, I was not and am not commenting on the politics or the veracity of either side of the issue.
I used the word skeptical in my last sentence because the author of your noted article said we should be skeptical because IPCC gets


and at this writing the funding for the IPCC is many times greater than all verified industry funding put together

and they get that for research.

He makes 2 very large errors that call into question his entire approach and conclusions.

1 - The IPCC is not a government funded research group. They do no research themselves. I laid out above what they do

2 - Their annual budget is around $7 million and is obviously far exceeded by the industry spending against their conclusions. Here's the WSJ link:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704188104575083681319834978

and I'm going to guess the WSJ is generally not sympathetic to the IPCC positions.

Your article called for skepticism. It invited investigation into funding sources. I did that, and find myself skeptical of it, if it gets 2 basic premises wrong.

[XU 87]

It's really cold again in Cincinnati this winter. Personally, I want global warming to come to Cincinnati. I could do without these long winters.

[waggy]

Paul,

Were you hoping I wouldn't read the WSJ article?



The IPCC has faced withering criticism. Emails hacked from a U.K. climate lab and posted online late last year appear to show scientists trying to squelch researchers who disagreed with their conclusion that humans are largely responsible for climate change. And last month, the IPCC admitted its celebrated 2007 report contained an error: a false claim that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035. The IPCC report got the date from a World Wildlife Fund report.


Even some who agree with the IPCC conclusion that humans are significantly contributing to climate change say the IPCC has morphed from a scientific analyst to a political actor. "It's very much an advocacy organization that's couched in the role of advice," says Roger Pielke, a University of Colorado political scientist. He says many IPCC participants want "to compel action" instead of "just summarizing science."


Mr. Pachauri describes the IPCC's record as "impeccable." Still, he said, the IPCC's reforms will aim to "ensure that even the slightest possibility of someone not adhering to procedures is eliminated completely. We just have to act like monitors at every stage."
The IPCC shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore in 2007 for its report that year declaring climate change "unequivocal" and "very likely" caused by emissions of greenhouse gases due to human activity. Formed in 1988, the group doesn't conduct or fund research, but filters the work of researchers world-wide.




The IPCC is garbage. They shouldn't be getting $7 let alone $7 Mil.

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43227.pdf


Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
FY2008 through FY2013. The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology
development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than
one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal
expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science, 68% for energy technology
development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate
change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports that energy tax provisions
that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion.



There is actually a website climatefundupdate.org, and I'm sure there are more. Check it out. Climate change is at a critical junction. You should be getting paid Paul.

[paulxu]

I would suspect the vast majority of the government funding described has been for alternative fuels. Most of it goes to private research/development firms. I would support that, not because of being for, or against, the proposition that climate change is impacted by human activity...but from the purely factual point that someday we will run out of fossil fuels. When that day comes, I hope we have renewable alternatives for the entire human race.

But I remain "skeptical" of people who rant/rave on either side of the climate change argument who create straw men like the IPCC to blame. They don't do research; they organize research results. Their funding to do this is a drop in the bucket compared to people who actively fund for the proposition that climate change is not affected by human activity. And both of those are different than funding for alternative sources of energy. Very different.

[Masterofreality]

I'll post this without comment. But 100 fact:
1618

[vee4xu]

I think it's time to put this thread on ice.

[paulxu]

Just so you don't run off the ledge because of some highly questionable stuff that may not be fact:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition

[Masterofreality]

Wikipedia stating that some subject is under criticism for "lack of verification" is hilarious.

Pot meet kettle

[paulxu]

You know my position, work on renewables.
But Scientific American was highly skeptical of that Oregon Petition stuff and did some background.
It looks awful shaky. And the Stietz guy did work for big tobacco and they thought he had sort of lost it in his later years.
Not a real good basis for argument all around.

Now a real set of data points from climatologists arguing against the majority would be persuasive, rather than some bogus petition.
Would like to see/read that.

[Masterofreality]

I would argue that basing an argument for climate change on a continually changing set of computer models and data taken from only a microscopic amount of time in the earth's existence is the true "bogus" position...especially when that very position changed 180 degrees from the position of only 40 years ago.

[paulxu]

Good point. I think a lot of the concern is statistical in nature. Chance of the recent readings occurring without additional interference from something like increased CO2 is pretty small.
Whatever...I'm still on the side of alternative energies because there is no disputing that we will run out of fossils someday. Can not replace them as fast as we are using them. So for our grandkids and future generations, we might as well get started in a big way.

[NY44]

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher - NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)


Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States Senator James M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who claims that climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.

[Wei-Hock Soon] has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

[XU 87]

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher - NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)

That's kind of funny - The New York Times accusing someone else of being biased.

[Strange Brew]

That's kind of funny - The New York Times accusing someone else of being biased.

Ha, it must be true if it was in the NYT. The paper that believed Hitler's antisemitism wasn't very genuine. They are about as credible as a Dan Rather report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-times-in-1922-hitlers-anti-semitism-was-not-so-genuine/

[bobbiemcgee]

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher - NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0)


Dr We In Hock Soon - sounds Republican.

[Masterofreality]

That's kind of funny - The New York Times accusing someone else of being biased.

As if "Climate Research Scientists" don't have a financial interest in perpetrating and perpetuating the "Global Warming" story.

Nah, no "grants" or "government funding" or "earmarks" of any kind. Nah.

[xu82]

I submit that global warming is here in Florida.... and it's friggin' GLORIOUS!

I reserve the right to change my mind if I can snorkle in 20 years where this sofa currently sits.

[NY44]

Does anyone have anything to say about the article itself? It's pretty cut and dry. Not a lot of opinions or bending of facts in that piece. A scientist whose work has been cited by Congressmen fighting climate change legislation has taken money from oil companies to write such work.

[xu82]

Does anyone have anything to say about the article itself? It's pretty cut and dry. Not a lot of opinions or bending of facts in that piece. A scientist whose work has been cited by Congressmen fighting climate change legislation has taken money from oil companies to write such work.

Obviously, that's pretty damning, but sadly there's so much crap on both sides I'm worn out and don't pay much attention to any of it. I'm not proud of that, but I'm honest about it. (That's got to be worth something...)

[waggy]

So scientists are for sale.

Duh.

[xu82]

So scientists are for sale.

Duh.

I am not a scientist, but I can claim to be one for the right price. Please PM me if I can be of service and "share" your funds with you.

[Strange Brew]

Does anyone have anything to say about the article itself? It's pretty cut and dry. Not a lot of opinions or bending of facts in that piece. A scientist whose work has been cited by Congressmen fighting climate change legislation has taken money from oil companies to write such work.

And, NASA's and NOAA's bread is buttered by the White House which is pushing for more taxes and regulation on the energy use of the middle class. What's your point?

[Masterofreality]

Somebody tell me how "Polar Ice is Receeding"?

I talked to a client of mine in Marquette Michigan this morning. -26 degree air temperature. #PolarExpress

[nuts4xu]

That warm sensation begin felt across the state of Ohio right now, is the orange glow coming from Victory Parkway, inside the Cintas Center. The Muskies team is red hot right now. So much so, the 10" of recent snow has melted, grass is tall and green, tulips have sprung up on campus, and kids are walking around in shorts and sports bras throwing frisbees on the mall.

I don't know if it is global warming, but around this time of year, this sensation takes place every few years around this part of Cincinnati.

If my meteorological skills prove right, this warmth will continue through the first week of April and will cause spontaneous tail gating parties, build student rapport, and help recruit brand new members to the Xavier Nation bandwagon.

Bring on the heat!!

[SemajParlor]

Holy crap. I thought this was thread was an actual joke. It's 2015 and we still have people out there that actually deny this stuff.

[SemajParlor]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-climate-change-skeptics-could-reach-catastr,36521/

[NY44]

[/B]
Obviously, that's pretty damning, but sadly there's so much crap on both sides I'm worn out and don't pay much attention to any of it. I'm not proud of that, but I'm honest about it. (That's got to be worth something...)

No there's not. There's research and peer edited evidence on one side, and then crap on the other. Glad to see this guy's work added to the crap section.

[NY44]

And, NASA's and NOAA's bread is buttered by the White House which is pushing for more taxes and regulation on the energy use of the middle class. What's your point?

You say that as if those 2 agencies are the only one who think global warming is real .

[XU 87]

No there's not. There's research and peer edited evidence on one side, and then crap on the other. Glad to see this guy's work added to the crap section.

I always like debating with liberals.

Liberal- The studies I agree with are science and the studies you agree with are crap."

Conservative- "What's your proof?"

Liberal- "The New York Times says so."

Conservative- "What about all the stories about manufactured and manipulated evidence to support the global warming theory??

Liberal- "Meaningless. Exaggerated. Even the New York Times said so."

Conservative- "But isn't it true that the data was manipulated to reach a particular conclusion that global warming exists? Isn't that unscientific?"

Liberal- "You're obviously just a right wing nut job who refuses to accept science. I don't want to discuss this issue with such an idiot any longer."

[NY44]

I always like debating with liberals.

Liberal- The studies I agree with are science and the studies you agree with are crap."

Conservative- "What's your proof?"

Liberal- "The New York Times says so."

Conservative- "What about all the stories about manufactured and manipulated evidence to support the global warming theory??

Liberal- "Meaningless. Exaggerated. Even the New York Times said so."

Conservative- "But isn't it true that the data was manipulated to reach a particular conclusion that global warming exists? Isn't that unscientific?"

Liberal- "You're obviously just a right wing nut job who refuses to accept science. I don't want to discuss this issue with such an idiot any longer."

Wow. You're much more polite and eloquent in your hypothetical conversations.

[XU 87]

Wow. You're much more polite and eloquent in your hypothetical conversations.

I forgot to add:

Conservative- "Did you ever read Krauthammer's article about global warming in the Washington Post? He pointed out that even if global warming exists, it is futile for the U.S. to combat global warming if other countries like China and India refuse to so as well."

Liberal- "I didn't read the article, but I know about it. After he wrote that article, I signed a petition along with 100's of thousands of other liberals demanding the Washington Post remove him from their editorial page. We can't have right wingers like Krauthammer writing stupid editorials like that one."

Conservative- "But I thought liberals are for free speech and the marketplace of various ideas and opinions?"

Liberal- "We are, provided we agree with the ideas and opinions. If not, unscientific right wing nut jobs like Krauthammer shouldn't be allowed to spew their stupid opinions. That's why I signed that petition to have him removed."

[NY44]

I forgot to add:

Conservative- "Did you ever read Krauthammer's article about global warming in the Washington Post? He pointed out that even if global warming exists, it is futile for the U.S. to combat global warming if other countries like China and India refuse to so as well."

Liberal- "I didn't read the article, but I know about it. After he wrote that article, I signed a petition along with 100's of thousands of other liberals demanding the Washington Post remove him from their editorial board. We can't have right wingers like Krauthammer writing stupid editorials like that one."

Conservative- "But I thought liberals are for free speech and the market place of various ideas and opinions?"

Liberal- "We are, provided we agree with the ideas and opinions. If not, unscientific right wing nut jobs like Krauthammer shouldn't be allowed to spew their stupid opinions. That's why I signed that petition to have him removed."

Just a month ago: Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a joint commitment with President Obama to reach a global climate change agreement.

In November 2014: The US and China made a deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025.

[XU 87]

Just a month ago: Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a joint commitment with President Obama to reach a global climate change agreement.

In November 2014: The US and China made a deal to reduce their greenhouse gas output, with China agreeing to cap emissions for the first time and the US committing to deep reductions by 2025.

That wasn't my point.

But the China deal is a farce- "We promise to reduce greenhouse emissions starting in about 10 years. We promise."

India has even less of a commitment- "We promise to cooperate to reduce emissions."

[SemajParlor]

Implying that stances on climate change are formed simply on clashing American domestic political ideologies is obtuse and ill informed. 11 of the world’s leading national science academies representing Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States have issued joint statements about human induced climate change.

[Drew]

Better safe than sorry is my simple viewpoint.

[XU 87]

Implying that stances on climate change are formed simply on clashing American domestic political ideologies is obtuse

"What did you call me?"

Name the movie.

[XU 87]

Better safe than sorry is my simple viewpoint.

Would you propose setting speed limits at 5 mph? That would be much safer than higher speed limits.

[Masterofreality]

That wasn't my point.

But the China deal is a farce- "We promise to reduce greenhouse emissions starting in about 10 years. We promise."

India has even less of a commitment- "We promise to cooperate to reduce emissions."

This.

[SemajParlor]

"What did you call me?"

Name the movie.

Don't put me in solitary!

[chico]

"What did you call me?"

Name the movie.

Thanks. Now I'm reading these posts in my head with the voice of Morgan Freeman.

[xu82]

Thanks. Now I'm reading these posts in my head with the voice of Morgan Freeman.

Or is it Frank Caliendo????

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Good point, why don't we all just crap on our planet and go straight to hell. Great idea XU 87, you win the internet today.

The smart person understands that regardless of data, we all do far too much to kill our own world. Regardless if the step is small, we need to take the first one to start reducing emissions and slow down the pollution of the only planet we have.


That wasn't my point.

But the China deal is a farce- "We promise to reduce greenhouse emissions starting in about 10 years. We promise."

India has even less of a commitment- "We promise to cooperate to reduce emissions."

[XU 87]

The smart person understands that regardless of data, we all do far too much to kill our own world.

In other words, you don't care what the facts are, global warming exists. That doesn't seem very smart.

[Strange Brew]

The smart person understands that regardless of data, we all do far too much to kill our own world. Regardless if the step is small, we need to take the first one to start reducing emissions and slow down the pollution of the only planet we have.

um, I'm going to give you a chance to walk this one back before I respond b/c I want to believe as a fellow Xavier grad you were not being serious.

[XU 87]

Global warming alarmists are always interested in the "science", unless the science disagrees with their opinion. When that's the case, global warming alarmists simply try to force the other side to shut up, which is a common tactic from the left.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/opinion-rich-lowry-climate-change-115518.html?ml=m_t2_2h#.VO8yQXktGUl

[ChicagoX]

Global warming alarmists are always interested in the "science", unless the science disagrees with their opinion. When that's the case, global warming alarmists simply try to force the other side to shut up, which is a common tactic from the left.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/opinion-rich-lowry-climate-change-115518.html?ml=m_t2_2h#.VO8yQXktGUl

It's surprising to see Dr. Pielke forced out when his research has led him to agree with most of the points made by advocates of climate change. If you're looking for a climate scientist to disprove climate change, Dr. Pielke is not your man:

"At first blush, Pielke seems a most unlikely target. It’s not that he doubts climate change. It’s not that he doubts that it could be harmful. It’s not that he doubts it is caused by carbon emissions. It’s not even that he opposes implementing aggressive policies — namely a carbon tax — to try to combat it.

Pielke’s offense is merely pointing to data showing that extreme weather events haven’t yet been affected by climate change, and this is enough to enrage advocates who need immediate disasters as a handy political cudgel."

I'm not a fan of forcing out dissenting opinions like this, especially when the research agrees with almost all other climate scientists. Disagreement in the science community tends to lead to more research to find the right answers. It's too bad that this scientist is moving away from climate science, where his efforts are needed.

[SemajParlor]

Global warming alarmists are always interested in the "science", unless the science disagrees with their opinion. When that's the case, global warming alarmists simply try to force the other side to shut up, which is a common tactic from the left.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/opinion-rich-lowry-climate-change-115518.html?ml=m_t2_2h#.VO8yQXktGUl

Again, do you understand that just about every powerful country in the entire world agrees that global warming is a pressing issue. Why are you pinning on this on an American left vs right issue?

[SemajParlor]

The American leftists and New York Times are at it again! http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/

[XU 87]

Again, do you understand that just about every powerful country in the entire world agrees that global warming is a pressing issue. Why are you pinning on this on an American left vs right issue?

Because you lefties are the ones pushing this global warming agenda. It certainly isn't coming from the right.

[SemajParlor]

Because you lefties are the ones pushing this global warming agenda. It certainly isn't coming from the right.

You do understand where your point might be lost when you say that American lefties are pushing the global warming agenda and ignore just about every developed country in the world though, right?

[XU 87]

You do understand where your point might be lost when you say that American lefties are pushing the global warming agenda and ignore just about every developed country in the world though, right?

The lefties in those countries are pushing it too. Global warming (or climate change as you now call it so you can use the term for whatever weather we have) is a left wing agenda to achieve left wing goals.

[NY44]

The lefties in those countries are pushing it too. Global warming (or climate change as you now call it so you can use the term for whatever weather we have) is a left wing agenda to achieve left wing goals.

An international academic and political conspiracy? Is it outlined on the back of the Constitution in invisible ink?

[XU 87]

An international academic and political conspiracy? Is it outlined on the back of the Constitution in invisible ink?

I believe it's outlined on the back of the "hockey stick", right next to the emails where the "scientists" discuss manipulating the data to conform with their beliefs.

[ChicagoX]

Noted climate denier Wei-Hock Soon was just exposed as a fraud and pawn of the energy companies. Another one bites the dust...

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work."

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Why would energy companies have to pay off scientists if climate change isn't real?

[XU 87]

Did he falsify his data like the global warming alarmists?

[NY44]

Noted climate denier Wei-Hock Soon was just exposed as a fraud and pawn of the energy companies. Another one bites the dust...

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work."

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Why would energy companies have to pay off scientists if climate change isn't real?

Sorry Chicago, I already posted this article last week. The NYTimes is liberal and therefore part of the international, political, academic and journalistic conspiracy plot.

[XU 87]

Sorry Chicago, I already posted this article last week. The NYTimes is liberal and therefore part of the international, political, academic and journalistic conspiracy plot.

I bet you think the NYT is "middle of the road".

[Strange Brew]

Noted climate denier Wei-Hock Soon was just exposed as a fraud and pawn of the energy companies. Another one bites the dust...

"He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work."

"The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

Why would energy companies have to pay off scientists if climate change isn't real?

What if climate change was never about climate?

http://www.cfact.org/2013/02/06/global-warming-was-never-about-climate-change/

[Strange Brew]

Did he falsify his data like the global warming alarmists?

Still no answer from the zealots......

[muskienick]

Still no answer from the zealots......

It is truly a shame that none of us is likely to be around when the absolute, positive, smoking-gun proof has aligned everyone on the same page. Some of us would have a lot of egg on our face!

(Actually, I thought that time had already arrived with just a few die-hards holding fast!)

[Masterofreality]

It is truly a shame that none of us is likely to be around when the absolute, positive, smoking-gun proof has aligned everyone on the same page. Some of us would have a lot of egg on our face!

(Actually, I thought that time had already arrived with just a few die-hards holding fast!)

That time will never arrive. The egg on the face will most assuredly be frozen.

Man is so arrogant that he thinks he can adjust the massive forces of nature- in a matter of one grain in the sands of time. Meanwhile, a 140 year old record for the coldest February ever is being set in Cleveland this month. It's going to be -28 in Yakutsk Russia on Sunday, yet, allegedly, ice is melting.

You know what? Actual Climate Conditions are getting in the way of Climate Theories. Damn! Shocking!

[Xville]

All I know is that the average high temperature for my part of the world this week is supposed to be in the low 50s....today high of 23...awesome. This doesn't prove anything...All I'm saying is that it is really cold, and I really hate winter.

[XU 87]

That time will never arrive. The egg on the face will most assuredly be frozen.

Man is so arrogant that he thinks he can adjust the massive forces of nature- in a matter of one grain in the sands of time. Meanwhile, a 140 year old record for the coldest February ever is being set in Cleveland this month. It's going to be -28 in Yakutsk Russia on Sunday, yet, allegedly, ice is melting.

You know what? Actual Climate Conditions are getting in the way of Climate Theories. Damn! Shocking!

Global warming is also causing global cooling. That's why it is now called "climate change".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/20/theres-growing-evidence-that-global-warming-is-driving-crazy-winters/

[RealDeal]

According to this poll, 66% of Repubs don't believe in global warming, which is fine. Per the same poll, 49% don't believe in evolution. Any evolution deniers out there? Just curious, nobody has started a thread on evolution yet.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf

[94GRAD]

According to this poll, 66% of Repubs don't believe in global warming, which is fine. Per the same poll, 49% don't believe in evolution. Any evolution deniers out there? Just curious, nobody has started a thread on evolution yet.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf

People that don't believe in evolution really confuse me

[NY44]

People that don't believe in evolution really confuse me

Prepare to be confused. Some arguments on this are sure to come now.

[GoMuskies]

People that don't believe in evolution really confuse me

I've always wanted to see the Creation Museum. I just don't want to give those wackos any of my money. Do they ever have a day where they throw open the doors and let people in for free?

[PM Thor]

I have an atheist friend who went to the Creation Museum and came away impressed simply by the professionalism of the place. He said that they passed off their information so well he could see how people could take it as gospel.

[muskienick]

I have an atheist friend who went to the Creation Museum and came away impressed simply by the professionalism of the place. He said that they passed off their information so well he could see how people could take it as gospel.

I wonder what your friend's definition of 'professionalism' is. I've never heard it equated necessarily to 'truth' or even 'logic.'

I see no reason why the creationists and evolutionists can't find common ground. For example, many believe that God is the architect of evolution through Her/His creative powers.

[waggy]

I see no reason why the creationists and evolutionists can't find common ground. For example, many believe that God is the architect of evolution through Her/His creative powers.


Exactly. OMG things evolve! There is no God!

[waggy]

..people could take it as gospel.


Hahaha. You can't make this stuff up. I hope you meant to choose that word as some sort of weird twist.

[Masterofreality]

Attention Internet Neutrality Homeland Police:

Thread Hijacking in Progress!!!!!!!

[xsteve1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVmdCAT7Rc8

[ChicagoX]

According to this poll, 66% of Repubs don't believe in global warming, which is fine. Per the same poll, 49% don't believe in evolution. Any evolution deniers out there? Just curious, nobody has started a thread on evolution yet.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_22415.pdf

Wow, that is really, really sad. Only 37% of Republicans believe in evolution, 49% do not believe in evolution, and 13% aren't sure. If that's not a sign that our education system is failing, then I don't know what is. This type is rampant anti-intellectualism is dangerous for the future of our country. This poll also fully explains why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

This article from Psychology Today was published last July, and it's a sad read: Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america)

[Xville]

Wow, that is really, really sad. Only 37% of Republicans believe in evolution, 49% do not believe in evolution, and 13% aren't sure. If that's not a sign that our education system is failing, then I don't know what is. This type is rampant anti-intellectualism is dangerous for the future of our country. This poll also fully explains why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

This article from Psychology Today was published last July, and it's a sad read: Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america)

you did notice that just over 300 republicans were polled right? I mean come on...and really who gives a flying bleep about whether or not someone believes in evolution. Who gives a crap? We have way more pressing issues as a country than that.

[XU 87]

This is undisputable evidence that democrats are stupid and lack common sense:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

[NY44]

Wow, that is really, really sad. Only 37% of Republicans believe in evolution, 49% do not believe in evolution, and 13% aren't sure. If that's not a sign that our education system is failing, then I don't know what is. This type is rampant anti-intellectualism is dangerous for the future of our country. This poll also fully explains why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

This article from Psychology Today was published last July, and it's a sad read: Anti-Intellectualism and the "Dumbing Down" of America (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201407/anti-intellectualism-and-the-dumbing-down-america)

Great article. I think the below quote from Charles Pierce really hits the nail on the head:


The rise of idiot America today represents--for profit mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage in the pursuit of power--the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people whom we should trust the least are the people who best know what they are talking about. In the new media age, everybody is an expert.

[X-man]

That time will never arrive. The egg on the face will most assuredly be frozen.

Man is so arrogant that he thinks he can adjust the massive forces of nature- in a matter of one grain in the sands of time. Meanwhile, a 140 year old record for the coldest February ever is being set in Cleveland this month. It's going to be -28 in Yakutsk Russia on Sunday, yet, allegedly, ice is melting.

You know what? Actual Climate Conditions are getting in the way of Climate Theories. Damn! Shocking!

Unbelievable that anyone can be this obtuse.

[ChicagoX]

you did notice that just over 300 republicans were polled right? I mean come on...and really who gives a flying bleep about whether or not someone believes in evolution. Who gives a crap? We have way more pressing issues as a country than that.

Other polls have also shown similar results:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This is depressing and sad for this country that so many people could be either so uneducated or completely brainwashed by religion to believe things that bend every law of the universe.

[Xville]

Other polls have also shown similar results:

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/12/30/publics-views-on-human-evolution/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx

This is depressing and sad for this country that so many people could be either so uneducated or completely brainwashed by religion to believe things that bend every law of the universe.

maybe..but really who cares? We have way more important things to worry about in this country than if we were once apes or chimpanzees or whatever. I care way more about our horrible health care system, the rising costs of tuition, and the complete facade that there is actually something called "health insurance."

[NY44]

maybe..but really who cares? We have way more important things to worry about in this country than if we were once apes or chimpanzees or whatever. I care way more about our horrible health care system, the rising costs of tuition, and the complete facade that there is actually something called "health insurance."

it's a sign of a bad mindset that beliefs are above science. If you're going to doubt scientific theories like like evolution because of your beliefs, then who knows what else you're willing to dismiss. It's a pretty bad sign for a nation when people will dismiss a vast majority of scientists, because they are scientists.

[Xville]

it's a sign of a bad mindset that beliefs are above science. If you're going to doubt scientific theories like like evolution because of your beliefs, then who knows what else you're willing to dismiss. It's a pretty bad sign for a nation when people will dismiss a vast majority of scientists, because they are scientists.

Although I agree with you about evolution, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't important. As I said we have way more important things to worry about. This is still the best country in the world, but we have a bleep ton of problems and worrying about whether or not people think evolution is real, is the least of my worries.

[NY44]

Although I agree with you about evolution, in the grand scheme of things, it isn't important. As I said we have way more important things to worry about. This is still the best country in the world, but we have a bleep ton of problems and worrying about whether or not people think evolution is real, is the least of my worries.

Yes, but it's a hell of a lot harder to work through those problems when a portion of the population won't listen to or even acknowledge reason.

EDIT: Great example: vaccinations. People unwilling to listen to medical professionals because they think they know better than the smartest people in our society.

[D-West & PO-Z]

Yes, but it's a hell of a lot harder to work through those problems when a portion of the population won't listen to or even acknowledge reason.

EDIT: Great example: vaccinations. People unwilling to listen to medical professionals because they think they know better than the smartest people in our society.

Fantastic example. Those people are causing problems for the rest of the population too.

[Masterofreality]

Unbelievable that anyone can be this obtuse.

Unbelieveable that you just believe the pap fed to you when nothing has been shown to prove the "predictor models".

Did you go nuts protecting all of your stuff from the "expert" predicted havoc that was supposed to be caused by "Y2K" too?

[X-man]

Unbelieveable that you just believe the pap fed to you when nothing has been shown to prove the "predictor models".

Did you go nuts protecting all of your stuff from the "expert" predicted havoc that was supposed to be caused by "Y2K" too?

I am not talking about "predictor models", dude. Rather I am amazed that anyone would suggest that the temperature in Cleveland (or wherever) is representative of anything except the temperature in Cleveland. Believe or not, Cleveland's temperature is not representative of either global or even the US average temperatures.

[XU 87]

If global warming exists, then I'm all for it, because it clearly is skipping Ohio. That being the case, we should see a huge growth in population in Ohio in the next few years, with Florida and some of the other states being covered by water due to all the ice melting. The increased population will help with property values in my neighborhood and bring in new business. So I hope you lefties are correct.

[XU 87]

I am not talking about "predictor models", dude. Rather I am amazed that anyone would suggest that the temperature in Cleveland (or wherever) is representative of anything except the temperature in Cleveland. Believe or not, Cleveland's temperature is not representative of either global or even the US average temperatures.

Global warming exists, but not just not in Mor's neighborhood, or anyone else's. But it exists. Trust me on this one.

[Masterofreality]

Global warming exists, but not just not in Mor's neighborhood, or anyone else's. But it exists. Trust me on this one.

Reps. Yes. Trust. Keep trusting......trusting......trusting......

[Masterofreality]

I am not talking about "predictor models", dude. Rather I am amazed that anyone would suggest that the temperature in Cleveland (or wherever) is representative of anything except the temperature in Cleveland. Believe or not, Cleveland's temperature is not representative of either global or even the US average temperatures.

Then what the hell are you talking about......dude......since this whole hysteria- and your contentions- are based upon flawed computer models? The average global temperature hasn't really changed for 17 years through 2013- in total opposite of what the models predicted. But in typical fashion- especially from a President who would rather decree than engage in honest, messy debate- the Climate Change discussion is declared to be "over".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/

And forget Cleveland. Yakutsk, Russia -28 this weekend...although I guess that is "warmed" from -36 a couple of weeks ago.

[Strange Brew]

Fantastic example. Those people are causing problems for the rest of the population too.

What the hell do vaccines have do with a belief in man made global warming. It's utter tripe, the science proves vaccines work with some exceptions (immune disorders and allergies), evolution is a solid theory with some holes (mutations and adaptations happen within all species but there is no scientific proof that these changes coupled with natural selection have led a species to turn into another) as is the big bang ( if all that exists is matter or energy, explain the singularity) but there is no evidence CO2 is heating the globe to the degree which would warrant the measures suggested by the political scientists of the totalitarian left.

[Strange Brew]

I am not talking about "predictor models", dude. Rather I am amazed that anyone would suggest that the temperature in Cleveland (or wherever) is representative of anything except the temperature in Cleveland. Believe or not, Cleveland's temperature is not representative of either global or even the US average temperatures.

Not that it will matter to you but Denver just set the all time (well probably not all time since I nor anyone else know how much snow fell here during the many ices ages or mini ice ages for that matter) snowfall record for Feb. Maybe you can post another poll as fact to prove my point?

[OTRMUSKIE]

What the hell do vaccines have do with a belief in man made global warming. It's utter tripe, the science proves vaccines work with some exceptions (immune disorders and allergies), evolution is a solid theory with some holes (mutations and adaptations happen within all species but there is no scientific proof that these changes coupled with natural selection have led a species to turn into another) as is the big bang ( if all that exists is matter or energy, explain the singularity) but there is no evidence CO2 is heating the globe to the degree which would warrant the measures suggested by the political scientists of the totalitarian left.

I would say evolution is more than a solid theory. Might as well just call it a fact. You don't need a missing link to prove the theory of evolution but sounds like you would agree with that. I am just shocked how anybody can say that global warming isnt real. I don't need data, common sense tells me that man has polluted the earth and the majority of scientist seem to agree that global warming is real. Sure you can find a few that say it's not but you can find a few people who say unicorns exist. Can one of you smart guys tell me why people are so scared to say global warming is real? I just don't understand why conservatives want to disprove this so much. What's the harm in trying to make this a more green world?

[Strange Brew]

I would say evolution is more than a solid theory. Might as well just call it a fact. You don't need a missing link to prove the theory of evolution but sounds like you would agree with that. I am just shocked how anybody can say that global warming isnt real. I don't need data, common sense tells me that man has polluted the earth and the majority of scientist seem to agree that global warming is real. Sure you can find a few that say it's not but you can find a few people who say unicorns exist. Can one of you smart guys tell me why people are so scared to say global warming is real? I just don't understand why conservatives want to disprove this so much. What's the harm in trying to make this a more green world?

Wow, you just called a theory a law (fact in your words). You just failed junior high science. Yes, my fellow science deniers need proof of the missing link to call the a theory fact or law. How in the %|** did you pass the 7th grade?

You said you don't need data to prove a point. That immediately disqualifies you as someone of scientific inquiry. When it comes to the science of economics or physics, I trust God, everyone else brings data.

[X-man]

Then what the hell are you talking about......dude......since this whole hysteria- and your contentions- are based upon flawed computer models? The average global temperature hasn't really changed for 17 years through 2013- in total opposite of what the models predicted. But in typical fashion- especially from a President who would rather decree than engage in honest, messy debate- the Climate Change discussion is declared to be "over".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/

And forget Cleveland. Yakutsk, Russia -28 this weekend...although I guess that is "warmed" from -36 a couple of weeks ago.

I rest my case.

[X-man]

Not that it will matter to you but Denver just set the all time (well probably not all time since I nor anyone else know how much snow fell here during the many ices ages or mini ice ages for that matter) snowfall record for Feb. Maybe you can post another poll as fact to prove my point?

I rest my case again.

[XU 87]

I rest my case again.

You rest without presenting any facts? As the judge, I grant directed verdict to MOR and Strange Brew.

Now go turn the heat up in the courtroom. It's 20 degrees today.

[OTRMUSKIE]

Wow, you just called a theory a law (fact in your words). You just failed junior high science. Yes, my fellow science deniers need proof of the missing link to call the a theory fact or law. How in the %|** did you pass the 7th grade?

You said you don't need data to prove a point. That immediately disqualifies you as someone of scientific inquiry. When it comes to the science of economics or physics, I trust God, everyone else brings data.

Brew I am very very very dumb no arguments there at all. However I never used the word law once. The past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

[OTRMUSKIE]

It is absolutely amazing how intelligent some of you are and yet how ignorant you can be at the same time. If you don't except evolution as a fact then I assume you believe the earth is 5000 years old. If you don't belive global warming is real you're either an old republican or listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. Do you also believe everything the bible tells you?

[Masterofreality]

Then what the hell are you talking about......dude......since this whole hysteria- and your contentions- are based upon flawed computer models? The average global temperature hasn't really changed for 17 years through 2013- in total opposite of what the models predicted. But in typical fashion- especially from a President who would rather decree than engage in honest, messy debate- the Climate Change discussion is declared to be "over".

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-global-warming-hysteria-ignores-17-years-of-flat-global-temperatures/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/07/global-warming-pause-puts-crisis-in-perspective/

And forget Cleveland. Yakutsk, Russia -28 this weekend...although I guess that is "warmed" from -36 a couple of weeks ago.


I rest my case.

So, since you have "rested your case" with no evidence to the contrary, that must mean that you have now accepted my argument as well as the supporting articles.

Either that, or you have gone all "Obama" on here, not wanting to debate, but just acting by decree stating that all discussion is over. #WeakSauce

[X-man]

You rest without presenting any facts? As the judge, I grant directed verdict to MOR and Strange Brew.

Now go turn the heat up in the courtroom. It's 20 degrees today.

Of course you do. You agree with them. I thought the "evidence" on the earth's temperatures (not Cleveland's) would have been known to you. But since you apparently don't read anything but right-wing trash, see the link in my response to MOR below.

[X-man]

So, since you have "rested your case" with no evidence to the contrary, that must mean that you have now accepted my argument as well as the supporting articles.

Either that, or you have gone all "Obama" on here, not wanting to debate, but just acting by decree stating that all discussion is over. #WeakSauce

Here you go, dude. Just one of the hundreds of articles on the earth's temperature trends....http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml.

[XU 87]

Here you go, dude. Just one of the hundreds of articles on the earth's temperature trends....http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml.

Did the article use falsified data like some of the others?

And this article is wrong. In the 70's the climatologists were telling us that we were having the second coming of the Ice Age. This article discusses long term warming since 1880. That can't be true.

Warming is caused by carbon dioxide? Should we stop exhaling?

[Masterofreality]

Here you go, dude. Just one of the hundreds of articles on the earth's temperature trends....http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/global-temps.shtml.

Article is very suspect as '87 pointed out.

Just Keep using those flawed climate models though. Add to that, there has only been the technology to uniformly measure the entire Earth temperature since 1979.

There was no full planet temperature capability in 1880. I assume that those measurements were also based on "computer models". Rather now we actually have satellites that measure as the Forbes articles so succinctly say. To wit:

"Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979. Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the charts....."

So, there..........DUDE!!!!

[Strange Brew]

It is absolutely amazing how intelligent some of you are and yet how ignorant you can be at the same time. If you don't except evolution as a fact then I assume you believe the earth is 5000 years old. If you don't belive global warming is real you're either an old republican or listen to too much Rush Limbaugh. Do you also believe everything the bible tells you?

um, no. I accept evolution as a plausible theory as to how species have changed over time and it makes more sense to me from a scientific perspective than what is believed by some Evangelicals. However, it is not a FACT and it is nowhere near considered to be law. you keep using the word fact but I'm not sure you understand it's definition.

Simple questions:

Has the Earth's temperature increased since the late 90's or stayed relatively the same?

Is CO2 a pollutant?

What is the definition of alchemy?

[X-man]

Article is very suspect as '87 pointed out.

Just Keep using those flawed climate models though. Add to that, there has only been the technology to uniformly measure the entire Earth temperature since 1979.

There was no full planet temperature capability in 1880. I assume that those measurements were also based on "computer models". Rather now we actually have satellites that measure as the Forbes articles so succinctly say. To wit:

"Satellite instruments began uniformly measuring temperatures throughout the Earth’s lower atmosphere in 1979. Climate scientists overseeing these NASA satellite instruments produced the charts....."

So, there..........DUDE!!!!

Yeah, all the articles are suspect. In fact, it's a total conspiracy by all scientists because....well, just because. I fear for your grandkids and their grandkids. But hey, live it up now because who gives a shit about tomorrow....dude.

[Strange Brew]

Yeah, all the articles are suspect. In fact, it's a total conspiracy by all scientists because....well, just because. I fear for your grandkids and their grandkids. But hey, live it up now because who gives a shit about tomorrow....dude.

All scientists???

[Drew]

Would you propose setting speed limits at 5 mph? That would be much safer than higher speed limits.

If driving above 5 mph could potentially upset the delicate balance required for life on this planet, then yes.

[OTRMUSKIE]

Evolution is a fact, end of story. I may have failed 7th grade science but the word theory is just a vague word for FACT. I respect your opinion but you're wrong. Evolution is a fact, global warming is a fact. Please tell me why you want to believe that thes two things arn't facts? Would it change your life if they were. I just don't get why people are so quick to oppose these two issues. Glacial Melting In Antarctica Makes Continent The 'Ground Zero Of Global Climate Change' http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/27/the-big-melt-antarctica_n_6766290.html

[waggy]

If evolution means that man evolved from an ape, then I'm not onboard. Everyone's entitled to believe what they want, but I hope they aren't teaching that in our schools. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they are though.

[XU-PA]

If evolution means that man evolved from an ape, then I'm not onboard. Everyone's entitled to believe what they want, but I hope they aren't teaching that in our schools. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if they are though.

The only people who say we "evolved from apes" have about a 4th grade understanding of evolution, or are misspeaking so that they can discredit a science that is believed by the vast majority of intelligent people. For those who don't understand, this puts it simply enough so that your pre high schoolers can get it.
"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

[XU 87]

If driving above 5 mph could potentially upset the delicate balance required for life on this planet, then yes.

Ted Kaczynski, how are you getting internet privileges in prison?

[NY44]

Here's a quote from Chevron:


Chevron shares the concerns of governments and the public about climate change risks and recognizes that the use of fossil fuels to meet the world’s energy needs is a contributor to rising greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the earth’s atmosphere. We believe that taking prudent, practical and cost effective action to address climate change risks is the right thing to do. Mitigation of GHG emissions, adaptation to climate change and continuation of scientific and technological research should all be considered.

From here: Chevron | Climate Change (http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/)

[OTRMUSKIE]

If you ever want to know more about evolution listen to Richard Dawkins, the man is very intelligent. My favorite explanation of evolution is this.
http://youtu.be/CRBHxJBUv_A

[Drew]

Ted Kaczynski, how are you getting internet privileges in prison?

Classy.

[XU 87]

Classy.

C'mon Ted, has prison dulled your sense of humor?

[PM Thor]

I don't understand the motivation for people who don't believe in climate change. Why not take up some of the suggestions being made by people who believe Climate Change? I mean, it's generally a good idea to lower emissions, to stop dumping so much pollution into the climate anyway. Also, alternative fuels, renewable energy and the like could be a very profitable business worldwide, why not get ahead of it and invest in it, make the US the leading seller of these products?

Are people just opposed because of where the message is coming from?

[Frambo]

I don't understand the motivation for people who don't believe in climate change. Why not take up some of the suggestions being made by people who believe Climate Change? I mean, it's generally a good idea to lower emissions, to stop dumping so much pollution into the climate anyway. Also, alternative fuels, renewable energy and the like could be a very profitable business worldwide, why not get ahead of it and invest in it, make the US the leading seller of these products?

Are people just opposed because of where the message is coming from?

I think people are opposed because they don't believe where the research is coming from. It is totally being done for profit by both sides.....just my opinion.

I agree with you that we should be doing it all, but I disagree with those that want to go into new technologies without using the fuels that we already have.

[SemajParlor]

Are people just opposed because of where the message is coming from?

Ding ding ding

[Drew]

C'mon Ted, has prison dulled your sense of humor?

Its sad to think that you are likely an over 40 adult acting like a 15 year old.

[MADXSTER]

I don't understand the motivation for people who don't believe in climate change. Why not take up some of the suggestions being made by people who believe Climate Change? I mean, it's generally a good idea to lower emissions, to stop dumping so much pollution into the climate anyway. Also, alternative fuels, renewable energy and the like could be a very profitable business worldwide, why not get ahead of it and invest in it, make the US the leading seller of these products?

Are people just opposed because of where the message is coming from?

First of all I believe in Climate Change. But then I believe there is always a change going on. The little Ice Age lasted for 300+ years, 1550 - 1850 approximately. Yes, during the revolutionary war. Why? Who knows. Was there lesser carbon emissions? To understand why it got colder would go along way as to truly understanding why it is getting warmer.

If you lived long enough you find that scientists, though good meaning, aren't the end all. Milk, like many other products, was considered good for you when I was growing up. Then it was deemed, unhealthy and fattening. Now Vitamin D is considered the new wonder vitamin from the ongoing Farmington research that has been going on since the 60's. Kids now drink gatorade and water, and injury rate from what I've seen in young athletes have gone up considerably. And like I said, there have been many drugs, products, etc that have gone through the same process.

Scientists use to be like newscasters. All newscasters with an onunce of pride wanted to be like Walter Cronkite, a person respected due to his integrity. His sign off was, And that's the way it is. Then came CNN, Fox etc and integrity went out the door. Ratings were 'created' by stirring the pot and reporting what viewers wanted to hear not necessarily the truth. Basically politics and money got skewed the news. Scientists were basically the last bastion of hope on integrity. Now politics and money has gotten involved and who can anyone really really trust.

You mentioned alternative fuels. This was going on in the early 80's after the 70's oil embargo. I believe GM came out with electric cars. 3000 of them. You couldn't buy them. You could only lease them. Once the lease was up the vehicles were distroyed. The companies who helped invent them were bought out by the oil companies with non-compete clauses. Everytime a business started to pop up they were bought out and/or faced government issues. America would be much further along if free enterprise was allowed to flurish. Oil companies know exactly what is going on with alternative fuels and have major influence.

That's my rant.

[PM Thor]

Absolutely true Mad, I don't think scientists are the end all, be all of information, and things do change. But I do trust a scientific community a lot more than the 2-3% of scientists who disagree with them. I don't believe in grandiose conspiracies either.

But the one example that absolutely drives me nuts right now is Tesla motors. The automakers and dealers, along with big oil are adamant to block every effort for these cars to be sold in the US. They have gone to court over and over to block Tesla. Free enterprise? Nope, doesn't apply to these cars I guess. If auto dealers are so sure of their product, they would be willing to take on all comers. Not these guys though.

[waggy]

Family Gets Him Back from Hospital Cremated (http://topinfopost.com/2015/02/27/infant-dies-after-eight-vaccines-california)

[NY44]

Family Gets Him Back from Hospital Cremated (http://topinfopost.com/2015/02/27/infant-dies-after-eight-vaccines-california)

An article from the same website Unidentified Flying Objects – The Reality, The Cover-Up And The Truth (http://topinfopost.com/2015/03/03/ufo-coverup-the-truth)

[PM Thor]

Yeah Wags that's quite a source you got there.

Search the mom and the kids name and you get nothing. Come on man.

[D-West & PO-Z]

An article from the same website Unidentified Flying Objects – The Reality, The Cover-Up And The Truth (http://topinfopost.com/2015/03/03/ufo-coverup-the-truth)

Ha, thats good.

[waggy]

I got sent to that site by a thread with the under water aliens story. People being silly. I should have checked the other story before posting it.

[xu82]

Where do the aliens stand on vaccines? I wonder if they've seen War of the Worlds?

[OTRMUSKIE]

Am I missing something about that story of the child? That story is all over the net and I assume is real. Are you guys saying it was a hoax?

[NY44]

Am I missing something about that story of the child? That story is all over the net and I assume is real. Are you guys saying it was a hoax?

I can't find it on any real news sources. It's something you would have to go looking for, or in Waggy's case, be sent to. It very well might be true. Even so, it's clearly being used as a shock piece/click bait for an issue that is pretty hot right now. The article I posted was to give some perspective on what that site is all about.

[XU 87]

I am pleased to report that it is not snowing in Cincinnati. Since it's March, the temperature has risen above freezing, for the first time in several months, (at least it feels like several months).

Why has global warming decided to skip the entire state of Ohio? Or is Ohio experiencing the second coming of the Ice Age, similar to the late 70's? If that's the case, should we burn more fossil fuels to warm things up in Ohio? I'm just concerned that plan of action won't warm things up in our great state.

[chico]

I post this for informational reason only. I have no intent in wading into this discussion, merely to throw more gas on the fire - which, if this article is true, is going to be needed.

http://yournewswire.com/sun-is-extremely-quiet-scientists-worry-we-are-entering-ice-age/

[XU 87]

I post this for informational reason only. I have no intent in wading into this discussion, merely to throw more gas on the fire - which, if this article is true, is going to be needed.

http://yournewswire.com/sun-is-extremely-quiet-scientists-worry-we-are-entering-ice-age/

The authors clearly are bought and paid for by Chevron.

And I spoke to soon. It's supposed to snow tomorrow, a lot. I think we need more sunspots to heat things up around here.

[X-band '01]

I am pleased to report that it is not snowing in Cincinnati. Since it's March, the temperature has risen above freezing, for the first time in several months, (at least it feels like several months).

Why has global warming decided to skip the entire state of Ohio? Or is Ohio experiencing the second coming of the Ice Age, similar to the late 70's? If that's the case, should we burn more fossil fuels to warm things up in Ohio? I'm just concerned that plan of action won't warm things up in our great state.

My Fuehrer, we're getting more snow tomorrow.

[NY44]

The authors clearly are bought and paid for by Chevron.

And I spoke to soon. It's supposed to snow tomorrow, a lot. I think we need more sunspots to heat things up around here.

Are you familiar with the term "anomaly"? It's not surprising that people within a 500 mile area are experiencing the same cold weather. The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles, so your puny sample size means jack squat about a global phenomenon. Also, if you look at some of the maps of average temperature variation, you will see that the Midwest to the Northeast is one of the few places which is not deviating from the average. That is an anomaly. Maybe if this was a board with a greater representation of the global disbursement of people, all of you saying "it's cold" might mean something. However, there are plenty of places where it's warmer. Take California for example, where they are experiencing one of the worst droughts in history.

Maps from people who know it's cold in your backyard, but are smart enough to know that means nothing: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

[XU 87]

Are you familiar with the term "anomaly"? It's not surprising that people within a 500 mile area are experiencing the same cold weather. The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles, so your puny sample size means jack squat about a global phenomenon. Also, if you look at some of the maps of average temperature variation, you will see that the Midwest to the Northeast is one of the few places which is not deviating from the average. That is an anomaly. Maybe if this was a board with a greater representation of the global disbursement of people, all of you saying "it's cold" might mean something. However, there are plenty of places where it's warmer. Take California for example, where they are experiencing one of the worst droughts in history.

Maps from people who know it's cold in your backyard, but are smart enough to know that means nothing: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

It's going to snow tomorrow. Why has global warming discriminated against Ohio? What did we do to deserve such punishment?

I do have to laugh about the claim about the earth warming for 37 straight years going back to 1976. Don't these idiots know that in 1978 they were predicting the second coming of the ice age because of global cooling? I wish they would make up their mind.

[xu82]

It's going to snow tomorrow. Why has global warming discriminated against Ohio? What did we do to deserve such punishment?

"Ohio" is not a protected class... you'll take what you get! Break out the shovels and be happy about it!

[SemajParlor]

Are you familiar with the term "anomaly"? It's not surprising that people within a 500 mile area are experiencing the same cold weather. The Earth's circumference is 24,000 miles, so your puny sample size means jack squat about a global phenomenon. Also, if you look at some of the maps of average temperature variation, you will see that the Midwest to the Northeast is one of the few places which is not deviating from the average. That is an anomaly. Maybe if this was a board with a greater representation of the global disbursement of people, all of you saying "it's cold" might mean something. However, there are plenty of places where it's warmer. Take California for example, where they are experiencing one of the worst droughts in history.

Maps from people who know it's cold in your backyard, but are smart enough to know that means nothing: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Summary of this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nyGqMAZYrA

[OTRMUSKIE]

People don't seem to understand that just because it snows doesn't means global warming doesn't exsist.

[NY44]

It's going to snow tomorrow. Why has global warming discriminated against Ohio? What did we do to deserve such punishment?

I do have to laugh about the claim about the earth warming for 37 straight years going back to 1976. Don't these idiots know that in 1978 they were predicting the second coming of the ice age because of global cooling? I wish they would make up their mind.

It's because of the jet stream bringing air from the North. It varies more due to the volatility caused by global warming. You sir, have the meteorological understanding of a caveman.

Your second point isn't worthy of a response.

[waggy]

And just because global warming might exist (true historical data is suspect) doesn't mean it's man made.

And that's not a statement of pro pollution.

I don't trust the scientists anymore. And honestly at this point they are simply protecting their industry and livelihood. There's no turning back now.

[xu82]

People don't seem to understand that just because it snows doesn't means global warming doesn't exsist.

Are you sure? Seems like pretty solid evidence... You could have ended this a long time ago! I like to check in from time to time to find some kind of resolution. I know, it's silly of me.

[XU 87]

It's because of the jet stream bringing air from the North. It varies more due to the volatility caused by global warming. You sir, have the meteorological understanding of a caveman.

Your second point isn't worthy of a response.

So global warming is actually causing the world to cool? No wonder you lefties now call it "climate change".

The fact that "scientists" were worried about global cooling in the 70's is not worthy of a response? Most people say that when they have no credible response.

[NY44]

So global warming is actually causing the world to cool? No wonder you lefties now call it "climate change".

The fact that "scientists" were worried about global cooling in the 70's is not worthy of a response? Most people say that when they have no credible response.

It's not causing 'the world' to cool, the Midwest to Northeastern United States. Climate Change is more accurate. As you point out, some places on the globe aren't necessarily experiencing a rise in temperature.

Scientists from 30 years ago were wrong and therefore so are today's? Sound logic right there.

[XU 87]

It's not causing 'the world' to cool, the Midwest to Northeastern United States. Climate Change is more accurate. As you point out, some places on the globe aren't necessarily experiencing a rise in temperature.

Scientists from 30 years ago were wrong and therefore so are today's? Sound logic right there.

To help with your continuing education, you can read the 1974 article from Time about how the world was irreversibly cooling back then:

https://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/time-magazine-june-1974-another-ice-age/

Please make special note the part about how man is causing global cooling and how horrible the world will be if the cooling continues.

[NY44]

To help with your continuing education, you can read the article from Time about how the world was irreversibly cooling in 1974:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/07/06/1974-flooding-drought-crop-loss-and-mild-winters-blamed-on-global-cooling/

Ok I read it. Still changes nothing. Unnamed scientists were wrong in 1974... Big whoop. We have made countless scientific advances in the 31 years since then.

[waggy]

We have made countless scientific advances in the 31 years since then.


Can you name 2?

[XU 87]

Ok I read it. Still changes nothing. Unnamed scientists were wrong in 1974... Big whoop. We have made countless scientific advances in the 31 years since then.

So they were wrong in 1974, but they were correct in 1988, when this global warming theory first started.

Maybe these so-called scientists overreact when the temperature goes up or down a degree or two. One thing is for sure- you agree they overreacted in 1974.

[NY44]

Can you name 2?

Modern Internet. CD-Rom. Me.

[mohr5150]

I have no idea why either side argues about this. It's just like politics and religion. Both sides believe there is no way they are wrong and will never give in. It sure is quality entertainment, though!

[DC Muskie]

Me.

You were created by scientists? WHOA! Awesome.

[NY44]

So they were wrong in 1974, but they were correct in 1988, when this global warming theory first started.

Maybe these so-called scientists overreact when the temperature goes up or down a degree or two. One thing is for sure- you agree they overreacted in 1974.

THEY aren't the same people! The 1975 'they' are unnamed scientists from 1 TIME article. The 1988-present 'they' is 97.1% of climate researchers in 2013.

[LadyMuskie]

I have no idea why either side argues about this. It's just like politics and religion. Both sides believe there is no way they are wrong and will never give in. It sure is quality entertainment, though!

Totally agree. I used to care to argue. Now I don't. Life's too short and many people are happily entrenched in ignorance.

[NY44]

You were created by scientists? WHOA! Awesome.

Accountants actually. An advancement nonetheless.

[xu82]

Totally agree. I used to care to argue. Now I don't. Life's too short and many people are happily entrenched in ignorance.

Agreed, I don't argue anymore either. I just declare myself correct, then stop listening.

[Lloyd Braun]

People don't seem to understand that just because it snows doesn't means global warming doesn't exsist.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-jim-inhofe-throws-snowball-senate-floor-attempt/story?id=29255635

Didn't see this in the thread yet and thought it would be a nice addition to this "discussion".

[X-man]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-jim-inhofe-throws-snowball-senate-floor-attempt/story?id=29255635

Didn't see this in the thread yet and thought it would be a nice addition to this "discussion".

I would go a step further. Last year, it was warmer in virtually all regions of the earth except the Midwest and Northeast. That appears to be happening again this year. I suspect that we in the Midwest and Northeast may have to get used to colder and snowier winters because the rest of the earth is warming. If true, that sucks.

[XU 87]

I would go a step further. Last year, it was warmer in virtually all regions of the earth except the Midwest and Northeast. That appears to be happening again this year. I suspect that we in the Midwest and Northeast may have to get used to colder and snowier winters because the rest of the earth is warming. If true, that sucks.

So global warming is also causing global cooling. I wish it would make up its mind.

But so what you're saying is that if the rest of the world would get cooler, this would make the Midwest and the Northeast warmer. Makes sense to me.

[94GRAD]

So global warming is also causes global cooling. I wish it would make up its mind.

Global cooling in the 70's caused Global Warming everywhere but the Midwest and Northeast portions of the US where it is still cooling making the rest of the world warmer. :seestars::eek::whiteflag:

[XU 87]

Global cooling in the 70's caused Global Warming everywhere but the Midwest and Northeast portions of the US where it is still cooling making the rest of the world warmer. :seestars::eek::whiteflag:

I think you are on to something here- the cooling in the Midwest and Northeast is causing global warming in the rest of the world, not the other way around as many argue. So if we can just warm up our area, that will cool down other areas.

Problem solved.

[X-man]

So global warming is also causing global cooling. I wish it would make up its mind.

But so what you're saying is that if the rest of the world would get cooler, this would make the Midwest and the Northeast warmer. Makes sense to me.

Amazing how obtuse you are. Sure hope you aren't a Xavier grad.

[XU 87]

Amazing how obtuse you are. Sure hope you aren't a Xavier grad.

Hey now, no name calling just because I don't think your arguments make any sense. Back in the 70's when we were having global cooling, why didn't that make the Midwest and Northeast warmer? We had some terrible winters back then.

[NY44]

So global warming is also causing global cooling. I wish it would make up its mind.

But so what you're saying is that if the rest of the world would get cooler, this would make the Midwest and the Northeast warmer. Makes sense to me.

You have literally posted the same thing before. You're being a troll at this point.

[XU 87]

You have literally posted the same thing before. You're being a troll at this point.

No, the theory of global cooling causing global warming is new, just brought up today, although I have to give credit to 94Grad for that revelation.

It's not my fault that your arguments aren't logical (warming causes cooling, it's warming everywhere else except where we all live, the scientists in the 70's are wrong but the scientists in the 80's were correct, etc).

P.S. It's snowing in Cincinnati.

[muskienick]

No, the theory of global cooling causing global warming is new, just brought up today, although I have to give credit to 94Grad for that revelation.

It's not my fault that your arguments aren't logical (warming causes cooling, it's warming everywhere else except where we all live, the scientists in the 70's are wrong but the scientists in the 80's were correct, etc).

P.S. It's snowing in Cincinnati.

News Flash for XU87 --- It's freaking winter, 87!!! Wtf do you expect???

[ChicagoX]

The longer this thread goes, the more it explains why only 6% of scientists identify as Republican.

You have to give the energy companies credit, because they've done a phenomenal job of promoting misinformation to get enough people to deny science so that they can continue to pollute the planet with impunity.

[XU 87]

All those scientists who were predicting global cooling in the 70's- were they democrats?

And can you show me where anyone argued that "we should pollute the planet with impunity"? Why do you lefties have to resort to such exaggeration and distortion when your arguments fail?

And why are you so intolerant of opposing views? Why do you try to silence opposing views?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-s-lindzen-the-political-assault-on-climate-skeptics-1425513033

[ChicagoX]

All those scientists who were predicting global cooling in the 70's- were they democrats?

And can you show me where anyone argued that "we should pollute the planet with impunity"? Why do you lefties have to resort to such exaggeration and distortion when your argument fail?

And why are you so intolerant of opposing views? Why do you try to silence opposing views?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/richard-s-lindzen-the-political-assault-on-climate-skeptics-1425513033

I'm not intolerant of opposing views, I'm simply stating facts. I just believe in this case that these particular opposing views are wrong based on far more evidence from the majority of scientists. Lindzen has always been one of the most prominent skeptics and is likely the most credible, but he is in a vast minority with his views. While there might not be scientific consensus regarding climate change, it's pretty darn close to it.

At the end of the day, it's the call to action that I care most about. I believe this country should be doing more to invest in renewable energy and less in older, more antiquated forms of energy such as oil and coal. The energy companies in this country have paid off enough politicians to prevent this from happening, and that is what frustrates me. Germany is a world leader in solar, Norway and Sweden get more than half their energy from renewables. If they can do it, we can and should be doing it, too. The only thing impeding that progress are lobbyists from the energy companies paying off our politicians in order to continue using outdated means of energy. Innovation and new technologies need investments, and quite frankly, the energy companies in this country would rather pocket the record profits they make year after year instead of trying to move forward into the future.

As long as we're posting links to articles: Americans Are Outliers in Views on Climate Change (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/07/upshot/americans-are-outliers-in-views-on-climate-change.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0)

[XU 87]

Germany is a world leader in solar,


http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

[ChicagoX]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/03/14/germanys-green-energy-disaster-a-cautionary-tale-for-world-leaders/

This article is a couple years old and doesn't give any credit where credit is due. Investing in new technologies can be challenging, but it's working for Germany. Here is something a little more recent for you:

Sun and Wind Alter Global Landscape, Leaving Utilities Behind (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html?_r=2)

Thank Germany for Falling Prices of Solar Panels and Wind Turbines (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-18/the-world-benefits-from-germanys-use-of-wind-and-solar-power)

Solar energy to be cheapest power source in 10 years (http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/solar-energy-be-cheapest-power-source-10-years-says-report-1489228)

Do you work for an energy company or own stock in one of them? That is the only reason why I can figure you're so passionate about maintaining the status quo of antiquated forms of energy, not moving forward with newer and renewable technologies, and a belief in a minority of scientists. Are you really that passionate about coal and oil or do you actually profit from those industries? There has to be a reason for the countless number of posts on this topic.

[XU 87]

I have no connection to the energy industry. This guy thinks solar is a success in Germany because it caused higher energy prices which caused people to use less electricity.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-22/germany-s-green-energy-is-an-expensive-success

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/05/what-obama-could-learn-from-germany-failed-experiment-with-green-energy/

If you think govt. subsidies and higher energy prices that are 200-400% above the rest of the world are good things, then so be it.

Germany's green energy program is so successful that they had to resort to building more coal plants.

And so we're clear- I am all for clean and renewable energy, as long as it's economically feasible to do and can meet our energy needs. The "economically feasible" part as well as "meeting our energy needs" part seems to be lost on you and others.

[ChicagoX]

I have no connection to the energy industry. this guy thinks solar is a success in Germany because it induced higher energy prices which caused people to use less electricity.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-22/germany-s-green-energy-is-an-expensive-success

I just find it unusual that someone with no ties to the energy industry would be so passionate about maintaining our use of antiquated sources of energy and have so much vitriol for renewables and the near-consensus of the scientific community. Is there a particular reason for your hatred of these topics?

I'm just trying to understand why anyone would be so opposed to investments in new technology and being more responsible stewards of the planet. Should we just continue to use oil and coal until the planet runs out of it? Besides disagreeing with climate change science and a clear dislike for solar energy, what is your viewpoint for how the country should move forward with our energy policy? Maintain the status quo? More nuclear energy instead of renewables? I've read a lot about what you disagree with but not much on your actual viewpoints with how this country should move forward.

[muskienick]

I have no connection to the energy industry. This guy thinks solar is a success in Germany because it caused higher energy prices which caused people to use less electricity.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-22/germany-s-green-energy-is-an-expensive-success

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/05/what-obama-could-learn-from-germany-failed-experiment-with-green-energy/

If you think govt. subsidies and higher energy prices that are 200-400% above the rest of the world are good things, then so be it.

Germany's green energy program is so successful that they had to resort to building more coal plants.

And so we're clear- I am all for clean and renewable energy, as long as it's economically feasible to do and can meet our energy needs. The "economically feasible" part as well as "meeting our energy needs" part seems to be lost on you and others.

And I am for building more coal-powered energy plants as long as renewable technology is advanced enough to take over when coal, oil, and natural gas are finally at such dangerously low levels that even the skeptics will finally accept them!

[XU 87]

I just find it unusual that someone with no ties to the energy industry would be so passionate about maintaining our use of antiquated sources of energy and have so much vitriol for renewables and the near-consensus of the scientific community. Is there a particular reason for your hatred of these topics?



See my post above about lefties who distort and exaggerate positions of people who disagree with them. See my other post, just above this last post, where I said that I'm for renewable energies, provided they are economically feasible and can meet and serve our energy needs.

I am "passionate" about our country having enough energy at a reasonable price.

You are passionate about having green energy, irrespective of the price and irrespective of whether it meets our energy needs.

When it comes to energy, and other issues for that matter, we have to do unemotional cost/benefit analysis. We can't just snap our fingers and have enough and efficient green energy because we think it's a "really neat idea".

Finally, I find it unusual that you think I must be connected to the "energy industry" simply because I disagree with you, as though only people connected to the energy industry would hold views contrary to yours. I suggest you get out there and meet some people who don't agree with all of your views.

[ChicagoX]

We can't just snap our fingers and have enough and efficient green energy because we think it's a "really neat idea".

I suggest you get out there and meet some people who don't agree with all of your views.

I agree that we can't just snap our fingers and have efficient green energy, which is why stronger investment into the research and development of these technologies needs to start now. Otherwise, we just kick the can down the road and continue long-term use of our antiquated energy sources, which is precisely what the energy companies instruct the GOP to do in Congress. I'm not doing it because I think "it's a really neat idea," but because I think this is something that needs a stronger sense of urgency than you do. Other countries are demonstrating that it can be done effectively and I believe the U.S. is falling behind.

As far as reading up on differing viewpoints, I do this on a daily basis by reading news web sites for both right-wing and left-wing news as well as more neutral news sites. I think you could take your own advice, while you're at it. You seem to have a hard time with people disagreeing with you based on the number of posts in this thread that are basically just trolling and trying to get a rise out of people.

The last word is all yours...

[NY44]

I am "passionate" about our country having enough energy at a reasonable price.

I call bull on this. Since when has oil been reasonably priced? Until very recently we have been price gouged by the oil industry and turmoil in the Middle East. So what did we, the US, do? We tried to take some of the market share by investing in alternative oil sources ie fracking oil sands. Then Saudi Arabia flooded the market and prepared to wait new oil sources out with their reserves. So we're stuck in a race to the bottom of oil pits. Which we may not be able to afford to participate in and may very well drastically change/harm the world we live in. I for one am tired of the world being dictated by crooked people who own land with oil beneath it. We can solve all of these problems with renewable energies.

Oil will not always be able to meet our energy needs. It's a fact. We can sit around and wait until that day comes, or we can have foresight enough to adapt like any smart country would.

[PM Thor]

See my post above about lefties who distort and exaggerate positions of people who disagree with them. See my other post, just above this last post, where I said that I'm for renewable energies, provided they are economically feasible and can meet and serve our energy needs.

I am "passionate" about our country having enough energy at a reasonable price.

You are passionate about having green energy, irrespective of the price and irrespective of whether it meets our energy needs.

When it comes to energy, and other issues for that matter, we have to do unemotional cost/benefit analysis. We can't just snap our fingers and have enough and efficient green energy because we think it's a "really neat idea".

Finally, I find it unusual that you think I must be connected to the "energy industry" simply because I disagree with you, as though only people connected to the energy industry would hold views contrary to yours. I suggest you get out there and meet some people who don't agree with all of your views.

Pot kettle black blah blah blah

[X-man]

Hey, it's getting a lot warmer in Ohio. Are all you guys who believe that the earth's temperature is best measured by the temperature outside your window ready to concede that global warming is now a reality?

[SemajParlor]

Hey, it's getting a lot warmer in Ohio. Are all you guys who believe that the earth's temperature is best measured by the temperature outside your window ready to concede that global warming is now a reality?

Didn't wear a jacket today in the Northeast. GLOBAL WARMING IS BACK!

[XU 87]

Good thing it's heating up in Ohio. According to the global warming experts, that will cool down the rest of the planet.

[X-man]

Good thing it's heating up in Ohio. According to the global warming experts, that will cool down the rest of the planet.

What in God's name are you talking about? Please talk some sense.

[ChicagoX]

What in God's name are you talking about? Please talk some sense.

He's only trolling to get a rise out of people. Don't let it get to you.

[XU 87]

What in God's name are you talking about? Please talk some sense.

The "experts" are saying that the reason it's been so cold in the Midwest and Northeast is due to global warming. I think they're wrong. I think the Midwest and Northeast are experiencing global cooling. My opinion is supported by the Time Magazine article of 1974 stating as much as well as all the other global cooling experts back then. Therefore, since we are experiencing global cooling, it only makes sense that our warming in this area will cool the rest of the world.

In short, my opinion makes as much if not more sense than your opinions on the subject.

[X-man]

The "experts" are saying that the reason it's been so cold in the Midwest and Northeast is due to global warming. I think they're wrong. I think the Midwest and Northeast are experiencing global cooling. My opinion is supported by the Time Magazine article of 1974 stating as much as well as all the other global cooling experts back then. Therefore, since we are experiencing global cooling, it only makes sense that our warming in this area will cool the rest of the world.

In short, my opinion makes as much if not more sense than your opinions on the subject.

Why would you equate "regional" cooling (something that may indeed be associated with global warming) with "global" cooling? It makes no sense. There is actually climate science suggestive of the possibility that a warmer climate (something that is heavily documented whether you like it or not) may cause colder winter temperatures in the eastern US (and warmer temperatures in the western US). Turning this around to conclude that a warming eastern US (due to impending spring perhaps????) means a cooling western US and cooler earth is just stupid.

Please stop blathering if you just want to make ridiculous statements.

[X-man]

He's only trolling to get a rise out of people. Don't let it get to you.

Not a troll. Sorry. Just tired of anti-science diatribes.

[ChicagoX]

Not a troll. Sorry. Just tired of anti-science diatribes.

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about some of the nonsense posted by XU 87 that are only written to troll and get a rise out of people.

[Masterofreality]

What is nonsense is the arrogant belief that man can change the course of millions of years of natural climatic forces in 40 years- and keep changing the "scientific" models that allegedly "prove" it.

There are a lot of adjustments to when this climate Armageddon will occurr. Now it "May" be late in the century, but who knows? The purveyors of doom will all be dead by then, but they would have gotten all of their grant money and made a career out of "Crying Wolf". Meanwhile, Nature just keeps on generating weather appropriate for the season.

[X-man]

What is nonsense is the arrogant belief that man can change the course of millions of years of natural climatic forces in 40 years- and keep changing the "scientific" models that allegedly "prove" it.

There are a lot of adjustments to when this climate Armageddon will occurr. Now it "May" be late in the century, but who knows? The purveyors of doom will all be dead by then, but they would have gotten all of their grant money and made a career out of "Crying Wolf". Meanwhile, Nature just keeps on generating weather appropriate for the season.

And if they're right??? What does it matter if they were paid to be right or not? And why is it "crying wolf" if they are right? No one knows for sure because the data aren't there to be absolutely sure. That's why scientists consistently make their predictions as probabilistic (see the PCCC documents for example). So prudent policy should be based upon the costs of being wrong combined with the best probability estimates. Not just stupid statements like "It's cold in Ohio, so the earth can't be warming".

[X-man]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about some of the nonsense posted by XU 87 that are only written to troll and get a rise out of people.

Sorry about that.

[Masterofreality]

And if they're right??? What does it matter if they were paid to be right or not? And why is it "crying wolf" if they are right? No one knows for sure because the data aren't there to be absolutely sure. That's why scientists consistently make their predictions as probabilistic (see the PCCC documents for example). So prudent policy should be based upon the costs of being wrong combined with the best probability estimates. Not just stupid statements like "It's cold in Ohio, so the earth can't be warming".

Go talk to the Coal and oil burning Chinese, and every other coal burning developing country. We've installed our scrubbers. Leave us alone. Quit trying to put clamps on our economy.

Meanwhile all the "do gooder" scientists keep driving their fossil fuel burning cars to the labs every day, and Al Gore sold his "do gooder" TV network for hundreds of millions to an outfit fully funded by oil interests.

Please see through this bull sheet people.

[X-man]

Go talk to the Coal and oil burning Chinese, and every other coal burning developing country. We've installed our scrubbers. Leave us alone. Quit trying to put clamps on our economy.

Meanwhile all the "do gooder" scientists keep driving their fossil fuel burning cars to the labs every day, and Al Gore sold his "do gooder" TV network for hundreds of millions to an outfit fully funded by oil interests.

Please see through this bull sheet people.

Doesn't change anything about what is the sensible policy on energy should be if (1) the probability of warming is sufficiently high to think about dealing with, and (2) the cost of being wrong if the world is warming is higher than the cost of being wrong and it isn't. It matters not WHY people do stuff; what matters are if the consequences (costs) of climate change are intolerably high and there is something that can be done to slow it down or reverse it. Your argument is pure obfuscation.

[Masterofreality]

Doesn't change anything about what is the sensible policy on energy should be if (1) the probability of warming is sufficiently high to think about dealing with, and (2) the cost of being wrong if the world is warming is higher than the cost of being wrong and it isn't. It matters not WHY people do stuff; what matters are if the consequences (costs) of climate change are intolerably high and there is something that can be done to slow it down or reverse it. Your argument is pure obfuscation.

The key word in the above is IF. Even you can't bring yourself to certainty over this issue. I though that the "debate was over" in the words of the Greatest Obfuscator of our time, Mr. President Obama?

That is the whole point. This is not a definite issue, the world has not significantly warmed over the past 14 years and if somehow in the future it is shown that an issue truly is developing, the "World" needs to step up. The US has plenty of Clean air laws, clean water laws and significant regs on vehicle emissions that are already costing us plenty. How's that economy in Beckley, West Virginia these days? Uh, not so good.

Go cry to Russia and China and every coal burning developing country if you feel you're being wronged. Get them to stop burning coal and oil.

[XU 87]

.

Go cry to Russia and China and every coal burning developing country if you feel you're being wronged. Get them to stop burning coal and oil.

And Germany. They tried to go solar and wind, failed, and had to build new coal plants to have enough energy.

[paulxu]

What's wrong with being on the leading edge of developing renewable energy sources (and replacing fossil ones) in case the stuff runs out in our grandchildrens' lifetime? It is going to run out eventually.

[Masterofreality]

What's wrong with being on the leading edge of developing renewable energy sources (and replacing fossil ones) in case the stuff runs out in our grandchildrens' lifetime? It is going to run out eventually.

That is fine...as long as it is private money at risk and not another Government boondoggle like Solyndra. If there is sufficient prospect for profit, there will be a line of entrepreneurs forming to create products and processes. Keep my tax dollars out of it. There is enough waste already- like the minimum (and actually much higher) cost to each taxpayer of $10,000 for each Chevy Volt sold. Another incredible boondoggle.

[Masterofreality]

And Germany. They tried to go solar and wind, failed, and had to build new coal plants to have enough energy.

And their leaders all drive around in Mercedes and BMW's while pimping those gas guzzlers to the rest of the world to keep their economy propped up. #Hypocrites

[paulxu]

That is fine...as long as it is private money at risk and not another Government boondoggle like Solyndra. If there is sufficient prospect for profit, there will be a line of entrepreneurs forming to create products and processes. Keep my tax dollars out of it. There is enough waste already- like the minimum (and actually much higher) cost to each taxpayer of $10,000 for each Chevy Volt sold. Another incredible boondoggle.

I concur with you there have been a great many boondoggles. But therein lies the problem. No one is focusing on profits that can be there 2 generations out, or 3 generations out. But yet we know with absolute certainty (nobody denies this) that fossil fuels are finite. With no immediate profit gains to be had, it takes (probably) some sort of unified action to get going down the renewable road. We may not manage it well, probably because unified social actions most often require government sponsorship for something on this scale (think interstate system), and governments often screw the pooch. But we should be working towards it for the sake of a future generation that might be caught shorthanded.

[X-man]

The key word in the above is IF. Even you can't bring yourself to certainty over this issue. I though that the "debate was over" in the words of the Greatest Obfuscator of our time, Mr. President Obama?

That is the whole point. This is not a definite issue, the world has not significantly warmed over the past 14 years and if somehow in the future it is shown that an issue truly is developing, the "World" needs to step up. The US has plenty of Clean air laws, clean water laws and significant regs on vehicle emissions that are already costing us plenty. How's that economy in Beckley, West Virginia these days? Uh, not so good.

Go cry to Russia and China and every coal burning developing country if you feel you're being wronged. Get them to stop burning coal and oil.

I am glad we agree that we don't know for sure whether the warmer global temperatures over the last 20-30 years is a blip or a trend (although you oddly state that "the world has not significantly warmed over the last 14 years", in spite of overwhelming data to the contrary and near unanimity among climate scientists that this is true). Maybe the inclusion of the word I italicized, "significantly", is your escape clause although I suspect that you don't know whether the observed temperature increases are statistically significant or not. If you would read any of the PCCC reports on the subject, you would see that the PCCC is very careful to include such probabilities in its reporting of what is happening to the earth's climate and the possible reasons that it is occurring.

That said, are you also in agreement with me that some informed decision on climate policy (i.e. do something or do nothing) needs to be considered even though we live in an uncertain climate situation, and that this decision should be done on the basis of costs and benefits? And if you are, why do you keep bringing up red herring arguments like (1) it's cold in Cincinnati so the climate isn't warming, (2) the Germans drive Mercedes so they must be hypocrites, (3) Al Gore is a dislikable hypocrite because he lives in a big house and divorced his wife, and (4) Obama has made up his mind already (Obfuscator in Chief????? C'mon, grow up)? Stuff like this not only is totally irrelevant in the search for rational climate policy under uncertainty, but also is totally counterproductive to the extent that it encourages emotional responses to replace rational analysis of the situation. I am done with this thread, I guess, but it saddens me that we cannot have a realistic and rational conversation on the topic. It is a Exhibit 1 as to why our government is totally non-functional at arguably a time when there is tremendous need for thoughtful and considered policy making.

[XU 87]

Next week it's going back into the 30's in Cincinnati. Just one more example that we are not experiencing global warming. If anything, it's getting colder.

[nuts4xu]

My favorite thing about global warming, is it brings out the best.....to work on their tans!

http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2011/084/2/0/me_and_my_friends_sunbathing_2_by_artemis7981-d3cfv9t.jpg

[X-man]

Next week it's going back into the 30's in Cincinnati. Just one more example that we are not experiencing global warming. If anything, it's getting colder.

The normal low in Cincinnati is in the 30's until the second week of April, in case you have any interest in actual facts. But you manifestly do not. Sad.

[XU 87]

The normal low in Cincinnati is in the 30's until the second week of April, in case you have any interest in actual facts. But you manifestly do not. Sad.

So do you admit that it's not getting colder in Cincinnati? Any reason global warming is skipping our fine city?

[NY44]

So do you admit that it's not getting colder in Cincinnati? Any reason global warming is skipping our fine city?

Isn't it currently higher than the normal average then?

[XU 87]

Isn't it currently higher than the normal average then?

No, I think this has been the coldest winter since last year, which was the coldest winter since 1978. Cincinnati doesn't usually have snow on the ground all winter.

So if you get that coveted job in Cincinnati, bring your winter clothes. It's even colder downtown with the wind coming in from the river. And a certain new building is right on the river.

[NY44]

No, I think this has been the coldest winter since last year, which was the coldest winter since 1978. Cincinnati doesn't usually have snow on the ground all winter.

So if you get that coveted job in Cincinnati, bring your winter clothes. It's even colder downtown with the wind coming in from the river. And a certain new building is right on the river.

You sir, are a piece of work.

[ChicagoX]

That is fine...as long as it is private money at risk and not another Government boondoggle like Solyndra.

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit (http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit)

[XU 87]

After Solyndra Loss, U.S. Energy Loan Program Turning A Profit (http://www.npr.org/2014/11/13/363572151/after-solyndra-loss-u-s-energy-loan-program-turning-a-profit)

It's easy to make a "profit" if you don't include your expenses.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/392977/no-program-gave-us-solyndra-obviously-not-profitable-veronique-de-rugy

And the article I posted just discusses the Govt.'s borrowing costs. There are other costs- like paying the govt. employees who run and work in this program, costs associated with the building they work in, the heat they use etc.

[ChicagoX]

Good point, but it's still a worthwhile program that is giving innovative start-ups a chance. Not everyone loves coal and oil the way that you and all Republicans do and some people think it is prudent to invest in new technologies. Tesla paid off their government loans nine years early, so I don't see how anyone can claim that a government supporting private businesses is a bad thing. As much as you hate government and this particular president, at least people actually get a say in elections as opposed to letting corporations run the country. The corporatist policies of the GOP the past 30+ years haven't exactly helped the middle and lower classes.

Even though you hate the U.S. Energy Loan Program, it is accomplishing what it set out to do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/18/wonkbook-why-the-claim-that-the-solyndra-program-earned-money-may-have-been-misleading/

'Dawn Selak, an Energy Department spokeswoman, said the goal of the agency's loan program was "not to make a profit," but that officials were managing the program in a fiscally responsible way.

"Congress established these programs to accelerate the construction of innovative clean energy projects and advanced vehicle manufacturing facilities in the U.S. in order to advance our clean energy future, create economic opportunities, and address the threat of climate change," she said in an e-mail. "An important indicator of the program's success is whether borrowers are repaying loan principal and interest. Based on those criteria, the report shows that the Department is making prudent investments and our portfolio is strong."

While Marron rejects what he calls the agency's "spin," he essentially agrees. He says the loans were intended to encourage private-sector research into clean technology. By the government's reckoning, the loan program has prevented some 14 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that the loans are losing money is, in itself, "not an indictment" of the program, he said in an interview.'

[XU 87]

Good point, but it's still a worthwhile program that is giving innovative start-ups a chance. Not everyone loves coal and oil the way that you and all Republicans do and some people think it is prudent to invest in new technologies. Tesla paid off their government loans nine years early, so I don't see how anyone can claim that a government supporting private businesses is a bad thing. As much as you hate government and this particular president, at least people actually get a say in elections as opposed to letting corporations run the country. The corporatist policies of the GOP the past 30+ years haven't exactly helped the middle and lower classes.



Because, among other reasons, govt. should not be picking and choosing winners or losers in business. Govt doesn't do what is economically correct, it does what is politically correct.

As for the rest of your left wing rant, could you find where I, or anyone else in the republican party, advocates for elections to be banned, or that corporations should run the USA government?

Have you seen how the well the poor and middle class have done under Obama? The numbers aren't good. Despite what Nancy Pelosi says, handing out more food stamps does not create overall wealth in this country.

[ChicagoX]

As for the rest of your left wing rant, could you find where I, or anyone else in the republican party, advocates for elections to be banned, or that corporations should run the USA government?

Have you seen how the well the poor and middle class have done under Obama? The numbers aren't good. Despite what Nancy Pelosi says, handing out more food stamps does not create overall wealth in this country.

All Republicans have signed a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. They signed the pledge to Grover Norquist, who wants to "drown the government in a bathtub." GOP economic policy has become pure corporate fascism (aka corporatism) that only benefits a select group of very wealthy people. It is the party's corporate owners that tell them they can't pass any legislation that involves any kind of a tax increase, because if they do, they'll be "primaried" and lose their posh jobs in D.C. They are allowing the biggest corporations to write all legislation and run this country while the middle and lower classes be damned. You can thank the conservative justices in the Supreme Court with the Citizens United decision for taking the power out of the hands of the citizens and into the hands of the biggest corporations.

As for the poor and middle class under Obama...maybe if we was allowed to pass the legislation that he campaigned on and that won him two elections, the economic recovery would be faster for everyone else. The reason for the increasing gap between the upper class and the rest of the country is directly tied to the toxic supply-side economic policies of the past 30+ years. Our national debt is also tied to these toxic policies...it's no coincidence that it started increasing exponentially as soon as we started slashing taxes for the wealthy and biggest corporations. Reagan started us down this path and it's gotten worse and worse as time goes on. Supply-side economics are a good, short-term fix for an economy recovering from a recession, but when used permanently, the rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.

If GOP economic policies work so well, then why do red states rank at the bottom of the poverty rankings and bottom of the education rankings? Of the worst states for poverty in the U.S., 13 of the bottom 15 are red states. Likewise, 13 of the bottom 15 states in the education rankings are red states. Surely if GOP policies were so effective, these states wouldn't rank so badly. Isn't this an indictment of GOP economic and education policies decimating the middle and lower classes? If not, then what is?

Even Pope Francis knows that supply-side economics is a sham that makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. There is nothing that the GOP has done the past three decades to help out anyone besides people who already have a lot of money. It's completely immoral.

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.” ~Pope Francis, November 24, 2013

[XU 87]

All Republicans have signed a pledge to never raise taxes under any circumstance. They signed the pledge to Grover Norquist, who wants to "drown the government in a bathtub." GOP economic policy has become pure corporate fascism (aka corporatism) that only benefits a select group of very wealthy people. It is the party's corporate owners that tell them they can't pass any legislation that involves any kind of a tax increase, because if they do, they'll be "primaried" and lose their posh jobs in D.C. They are allowing the biggest corporations to write all legislation and run this country while the middle and lower classes be damned. You can thank the conservative justices in the Supreme Court with the Citizens United decision for taking the power out of the hands of the citizens and into the hands of the biggest corporations.

As for the poor and middle class under Obama...maybe if we was allowed to pass the legislation that he campaigned on and that won him two elections, the economic recovery would be faster for everyone else. The reason for the increasing gap between the upper class and the rest of the country is directly tied to the toxic supply-side economic policies of the past 30+ years. Our national debt is also tied to these toxic policies...it's no coincidence that it started increasing exponentially as soon as we started slashing taxes for the wealthy and biggest corporations. Reagan started us down this path and it's gotten worse and worse as time goes on. Supply-side economics are a good, short-term fix for an economy recovering from a recession, but when used permanently, the rich get richer and everyone else gets screwed.

If GOP economic policies work so well, then why do red states rank at the bottom of the poverty rankings and bottom of the education rankings? Of the worst states for poverty in the U.S., 13 of the bottom 15 are red states. Likewise, 13 of the bottom 15 states in the education rankings are red states. Surely if GOP policies were so effective, these states wouldn't rank so badly. Isn't this an indictment of GOP economic and education policies decimating the middle and lower classes? If not, then what is?

Even Pope Francis knows that supply-side economics is a sham that makes the poor poorer and the rich richer. There is nothing that the GOP has done the past three decades to help out anyone besides people who already have a lot of money. It's completely immoral.

“In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralised workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.” ~Pope Francis, November 24, 2013

"He's an angry elf."

I do like the reference to "corporate facism". When in doubt, call someone or some idea "fascist".

and I think it's kind of funny that you blame Republicans for Obama's failed economic policies. you had the house, the senate (filibuster proof) and the presidency the first two years.

Wealth distribution does not increase overall wealth. Socialism does not work. Overburdensome Govt. regulations and taxes don't increase business opportunity and jobs. There is a reason we're a relatively wealthy country and Russia is poor.

[ChicagoX]

"He's an angry elf."

Reps for the the Will Ferrell reference.

[SpectorJersey]

We are listening to opinions from someone who lives in Chicago? I lived there, that city is as communist as you get, a reason I moved

You show southern states in reference to GOP being the demise of their economic systems. Umm how about all the blue cities that have been driven into bankruptcy by the democrats. Or a step further, look what happens to European countries when they pull further left.
You failed to mention how many jobs are moving south based on the governments having pro business policies. Not a lot of companies chomping at the bit to move to California or Illinois, thats for sure.

[ChicagoX]

We are listening to opinions from someone who lives in Chicago? I lived there, that city is as communist as you get, a reason I moved

You show southern states in reference to GOP being the demise of their economic systems. Umm how about all the blue cities that have been driven into bankruptcy by the democrats. Or a step further, look what happens to European countries when they pull further left.
You failed to mention how many jobs are moving south based on the governments having pro business policies. Not a lot of companies chomping at the bit to move to California or Illinois, thats for sure.

First of all, you clearly don't know what communism is if you think Chicago is communist. Secondly, I won't disagree with you one bit if you're referring to the state's pension fiasco. That is what happens when one party rules a state with no checks and balances. Rauner, even though I disagree with many of his policies, will be good for the state since Democrats will have to work with him.

As for businesses moving...California has been doing quite well in this economic recovery, and while Illinois is lagging in job growth, the Chicago region saw a 0.7 percent rise in GDP per capita, better than the U.S. average of 0.4 percent. While unemployment recovery has lagged, businesses are still moving to Chicago. All you have to do is look around at all the cranes in the city to see that it is continuing to expand. If you want a good look at unfettered supply-side economics ruining a state, take a look at Kansas.

[XU 87]

I think Detroit is a good example of how left wing, share the wealth, policies work. The same with the old USSR.

[ChicagoX]

I think Detroit is a good example of how left wing, share the wealth, policies work. The same with the old USSR.

That's one city compared to the entire southern section of the country that is poor and uneducated because of GOP policies. I do think that there needs to be a balance of power in city and state governments with two parties contributing, because there isn't, you get two ideological extremes that typically end up failing.

I'm curious to know what modern-day Republicans think of President Dwight Eisenhower. My dad always hailed him as a hero for the middle class when he was growing up, but his policies would be considered far left-wing nowadays. He kept taxes high on the wealthy in order to invest in education, massive infrastructure projects, and research and development such as the space program; he warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex; he invested more money into Social Security; he raised the minimum wage. It seems to me that he would be called a socialist today by many members of the right.

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired" was "a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed." That doesn't sound like something a Republican would say these days. Does Eisenhower still have a positive reputation among Republicans, or has the party moved too far to the right to appreciate what his policies did to help continue to build the middle class? He blended a hybrid mix of capitalist free markets with some socialist policies mixed in to protect the poor and middle class and the country flourished.

[XU 87]

That's one city compared to the entire southern section of the country that is poor and uneducated because of GOP policies.

Are you referring to the south? Do really think they are ALL poor and uneducated? why is it liberals are against stereotypes but stereotype so often (southerners are poor and uneducated)?

And from 1865 until about the last 15-20 years, do you know what party the south predominately was comprised of, if not exclusively? (It was not republican, I can tell you that).

P.S. Please do not respond until tomorrow. I have to get some work done today......

[ChicagoX]

Are you referring to the south? Do really think they are ALL poor and uneducated? why is it liberals are against stereotypes but stereotype so often (southerners are poor and uneducated)?

And from 1865 until about the last 15-20 years, do you know what party the south predominately was comprised of, if not exclusively? (It was not republican, I can tell you that).

P.S. Please do not respond until tomorrow. I have to get some work done today......

No, not all residents in the south are poor and uneducated, but southern states are at the bottom of the education rankings and bottom of the poverty rankings, so that is the basis for my comment.

Enjoy the rest of your work day.

[Smails]

I'm curious to know what modern-day Republicans think of President Dwight Eisenhower

Please define modern-day Republican.

[RealDeal]

We are listening to opinions from someone who lives in Chicago? I lived there, that city is as communist as you get, a reason I moved



Hilarious. Where did you move to, Tulsa? I agree, Chicago has nothing going for it. Keep these posts coming please.

[XU 87]

No, not all residents in the south are poor and uneducated, but southern states are at the bottom of the education rankings and bottom of the poverty rankings, so that is the basis for my comment.

Enjoy the rest of your work day.

Didn't you listen to my clear and explicit instructions?

You blame republicans because the south is poorer than the rest of the country? Please elaborate. When doing so, please explain away that, until very recently, the south was run by democrats for about 120 years or so. Republicans just have to clean up that mess you left.

[XU 87]

http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2015/03/11/global-warming-n1967847/page/2

[ChicagoX]

Didn't you listen to my clear and explicit instructions?

You blame republicans because the south is poorer than the rest of the country? Please elaborate. When doing so, please explain away that, until very recently, the south was run by democrats for about 120 years or so. Republicans just have to clean up that mess you left.

The south has been solidly Republican for the past 50 years. How many decades does the party need before their policies actually start to work?

[XU 87]

The south has been solidly Republican for the past 50 years. How many decades does the party need before their policies actually start to work?

Nope, especially at the state level. Kentucky is still fairly democrat at the state level and has elected one republican governor that I can recall in the last 50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

[ChicagoX]

Nope, especially at the state level. Kentucky is still fairly democrat at the state level and has elected one republican governor that I can recall in the last 50 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_South

That must explain why Kentucky outperforms most other southern states when it comes to education rankings and poverty rankings.

[XU 87]

That must explain why Kentucky outperforms most other southern states when it comes to education rankings and poverty rankings.

You know, I can look these things up rather quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income

Are you still standing by your comments about republicans controlling southern politics for the last 50 years?

[ChicagoX]

If you're trying to convince me or anyone else that red states are the way they are today because of too much liberal influence, it's not going to work. Anyone with a pulse knows that the deep south is solidly red and almost always votes Republican. Their education sucks because they don't have enough tax revenue to invest in education programs. This will only get worse as time goes by with stronger Republican majorities in those states, because it's been proven that Republicans will slash tax revenue that is used to fund education in order to keep their corporate owners happy. Kansas and Wisconsin are the perfect modern-day examples of conservatism serving the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

[XU 87]

If you're trying to convince me or anyone else that red states are the way they are today because of too much liberal influence, it's not going to work. Anyone with a pulse knows that the deep south is solidly red and almost always votes Republican. Their education sucks because they don't have enough tax revenue to invest in education programs. This will only get worse as time goes by with stronger Republican majorities in those states, because it's been proven that Republicans will slash tax revenue that is used to fund education in order to keep their corporate owners happy. Kansas and Wisconsin are the perfect modern-day examples of conservatism serving the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

When it comes to the politics of the south, you're engaging in revisionist history. I just showed you the wiki article which has all the data. And by the way, this thread is about global warming. Maybe we should start another thread on how liberal policies make people poor and uneducated.

[ChicagoX]

We could also start a thread about how GOP economics bankrupts the country, increases inequality, and adds to the national debt.

[muskienick]

Back to the topic of this thread:

The following are the first two paragraphs of a recent study by the EPA:
"The Midwest is home to roughly 66 million Americans and includes the cities of Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, among others. Most of the region consists of flat prairie that is farmed for corn, soybean, and wheat, or is used for grazing livestock. Summers in the Midwest are hot and humid, and winters are cold, since the region is far from the temperature-moderating effect of the oceans.

In the Midwest, average annual temperatures increased over the last several decades. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and cold periods are becoming rarer. Snow and ice are arriving later in the fall and starting to melt earlier in the spring. Heavy downpours now occur twice as frequently as they did a century ago. These trends are likely to continue under future climate change: average summer temperatures are projected to increase by 3°F over the next few decades and could increase by over 10°F by the end of this century. This range would make summers in Illinois and Michigan feel like those in present-day Texas and Oklahoma, respectively. "

[Strange Brew]

Back to the topic of this thread:

The following are the first two paragraphs of a recent study by the EPA:
"The Midwest is home to roughly 66 million Americans and includes the cities of Chicago, Indianapolis, Detroit, Milwaukee, Kansas City, Cleveland, Minneapolis, and St. Paul, among others. Most of the region consists of flat prairie that is farmed for corn, soybean, and wheat, or is used for grazing livestock. Summers in the Midwest are hot and humid, and winters are cold, since the region is far from the temperature-moderating effect of the oceans.

In the Midwest, average annual temperatures increased over the last several decades. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and cold periods are becoming rarer. Snow and ice are arriving later in the fall and starting to melt earlier in the spring. Heavy downpours now occur twice as frequently as they did a century ago. These trends are likely to continue under future climate change: average summer temperatures are projected to increase by 3°F over the next few decades and could increase by over 10°F by the end of this century. This range would make summers in Illinois and Michigan feel like those in present-day Texas and Oklahoma, respectively. "

Seriously, the EPA? The agency that labeled CO2 a pollutant? That agency is a joke. They should label H2O vapor a pollutant because it makes the same amount of sense.

[DC Muskie]

That agency is a joke.

Thanks Nixon!