Soooooo, where is the Warming?

[Strange Brew]

Thanks Nixon!

Nixon....(shakes fist)

[muskienick]

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.

That was part of an article they provided using NOAA's research, not the EPA's itself.

[Masterofreality]

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. "

I can tell you by living in Cleveland that it is categorically false. We've had cool summers and colder winters.... and the snow is NOT melting earlier in the spring *Spoken as he looks out his car window at a still ice covered Lake Erie*

[muskienick]

I can tell you by living in Cleveland that it is categorically false. We've had cool summers and colder winters.... and the snow is NOT melting earlier in the spring *Spoken as he looks out his car window at a still ice covered Lake Erie*

MOR, the salient statement in the report was as follows: "In the Midwest, average annual temperatures increased over the last several decades. Heat waves are becoming more frequent and cold periods are becoming rarer." Even if your contention about Cleveland were true over an extended period of time --- and you'd be hard pressed to prove that, IT'S ONLY FREAKING CLEVELAND --- A CITY AFFECTED BY LAKE EFFECT CLIMATIC EVENTS.

[Masterofreality]

The warming is in Freaking New York City......the name of the heat wave is XAVIER.....

Deal with it!!!!!!

[94GRAD]

Can't tell if this is real or an Onion type article. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

[XU-PA]

Can't tell if this is real or an Onion type article. http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

No,,,, that's true. employee after employee within state government down here are coming out talking about it. told by superiors, warned, not to use the terms. Our "not a scientist" governor down here is a total idiot when it comes to climate and the problem.

[Masterofreality]

The warming is in freaking Jacksonville Florida, where basketball nets are about to be lit on fire by the Mighty Musketeers!

[XU 87]

It is snowing in downtown Cincinnati on March 27th. We are expected to have a low of 20 tomorrow.

[GoMuskies]

It is snowing in downtown Cincinnati on March 27th. We are expected to have a low of 20 tomorrow.

Woohoo offseason!

[xu82]

Woohoo offseason!

YEAH BOY! We've got until next fall to figure this out....

[XU 87]

Not only is global warming skipping the Midwest and Northeast, but now it's also skipping Wyoming.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/police-blizzard-conditions-contribute-to-multi-vehicle-crashes-on-interstate-80-in-wyoming/ar-AAb85ob?ocid=HPCDHP

But at least you can still ski in Wyoming.

http://www.onthesnow.com/wyoming/grand-targhee-resort/skireport.html

[X-man]

Not only is global warming skipping the Midwest and Northeast, but now it's also skipping Wyoming.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/police-blizzard-conditions-contribute-to-multi-vehicle-crashes-on-interstate-80-in-wyoming/ar-AAb85ob?ocid=HPCDHP

But at least you can still ski in Wyoming.

http://www.onthesnow.com/wyoming/grand-targhee-resort/skireport.html

Hint...that's why its called "global" warming rather than "Midwest", "Northeast", "Wyoming", or even "Cleveland" warming. But that subtlety apparently still escapes you.

[xavierj]

Hint...that's why its called "global" warming rather than "Midwest", "Northeast", "Wyoming", or even "Cleveland" warming. But that subtlety apparently still escapes you.

WhY should we worry and focus so much time on global warming? I read on the news this morning that Scott County Indiana with a population of 23,000 has 130 cases of HIV with more to come. Had 15 cases in the past two weeks primarily from drug use and needle sharing. Might want to put more energy and resources into something like that.

[XU 87]

Hint...that's why its called "global" warming rather than "Midwest", "Northeast", "Wyoming", or even "Cleveland" warming. But that subtlety apparently still escapes you.

Aren't the Midwest, Northeast, Wyoming and Cleveland part of the world?

I wonder if Wyoming ski season will go into May, or June.

[X-man]

Aren't the Midwest, Northeast, Wyoming and Cleveland part of the world?

I wonder if Wyoming ski season will go into May, or June.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did Xavier educate you that badly with respect to logical thinking?

[bobbiemcgee]

3 feet of snow in the Rockies, 45 inches in Utah. Californians soon will be coming over the Mountains with their Pitchforks. Water War is on.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/colorado-to-california-hands-off-our-water/

[muskienick]

Aren't the Midwest, Northeast, Wyoming and Cleveland part of the world?

I wonder if Wyoming ski season will go into May, or June.

87,

You are correct. The Midwest, Northeast, and Wyoming ARE part of the world. Collectively, they represent a very tiny percentage of surface area of our world. Furthermore, there are a few places (especially the continent of Antarctica) where the average temps are fractionally lower now than in the recent past as indicated by evidence in the ice layers.

But the fact remains that the AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE has steadily increased over the last series of decades. Receding glacial ranges, far more advanced than years ago, are threatening species like the polar bear and walruses. I believe that much of these climatic changes are the result of natural cycles like the degree of tilt of the earth on its axis, how far the earth is from the sun in its orbit, and the wobbling effect of the earth on its axis. We've had many, many dramatic climate changes dating back through prehistoric times when man either didn't exist at all or had virtually no effect on the condition of the earth's surface. It is because humans are now so numerous that they have made, through their day-to-day activities, drastic changes to the earth's surface. Vast expanses of the African and South American rain forests have disappeared for a variety of reasons that all have mankind as their cause. Much of mankind's temperate deciduous forests have also fallen prey to our development of metro areas and farmland.

Although those, along with our almost total dependence on fossil fuels, are unchallenged factors affecting our atmosphere, there are far too many NATURAL variables involved in climate change for anyone to specify how much, or how little, of it has been brought upon Earth by mankind.

A bunch clods like us on a Xavier Hoops chatboard are creating an exercise in futility in bickering back and forth among ourselves about climate change!!!

[X-band '01]

3 feet of snow in the Rockies, 45 inches in Utah. Californians soon will be coming over the Mountains with their Pitchforks. Water War is on.....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/01/28/colorado-to-california-hands-off-our-water/

It does make you wonder how long California can continue to sustain a heavily growing population. Extreme to exceptional droughts aren't permanent, but water will only go so far over time. You're not going to see a migration out of California like the Dust Bowl days, but eventually people will move to other states like Nevada, Arizona and Colorado instead. I'd love to see what happens to Colorado if the tables are turned and they're the ones in need.

[xu82]

Water is the new oil, except other energy sources eventually replace oil. The need for water won't go away, and we need to figure out how to better manage our needs and sources. Soon, we will all flock back to Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit for the Great Lakes. (OK, maybe not...)

[XU 87]

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or did Xavier educate you that badly with respect to logical thinking?

Did you call me obtuse? One more month of solitary!

[muskienick]

Did you call me obtuse? One more month of solitary!

Well you are certainly not acute (given the second syllable of that word)!

[X-man]

Did you call me obtuse? One more month of solitary!

Great movie.

[X-man]

It does make you wonder how long California can continue to sustain a heavily growing population. Extreme to exceptional droughts aren't permanent, but water will only go so far over time. You're not going to see a migration out of California like the Dust Bowl days, but eventually people will move to other states like Nevada, Arizona and Colorado instead. I'd love to see what happens to Colorado if the tables are turned and they're the ones in need.

They do have a major, albeit salty, water source along the western border of the state. Desalination, I suspect, will be the solution to a lot of their problems. A major desalination plant in Carlsbad is a year from going on-line and will meet something like 15% of San Diego County's current water consumption. There are problems with this solution though....very energy using and lots of very salty water to get rid of. Don't know if they have worked through those issues yet.

[waggy]

Xtra salt on your fries.

[94GRAD]

It's absolutely hilarious how many posters miss the sarcasm in posts. Kills me every time when they get riled up.

[Masterofreality]

Water is the new oil, except other energy sources eventually replace oil. The need for water won't go away, and we need to figure out how to better manage our needs and sources. Soon, we will all flock back to Buffalo, Cleveland and Detroit for the Great Lakes. (OK, maybe not...)

Oh, yes.....yes you will....:biggrin:

[bobbiemcgee]

It does make you wonder how long California can continue to sustain a heavily growing population. Extreme to exceptional droughts aren't permanent, but water will only go so far over time. You're not going to see a migration out of California like the Dust Bowl days, but eventually people will move to other states like Nevada, Arizona and Colorado instead. I'd love to see what happens to Colorado if the tables are turned and they're the ones in need.

Nevada and Arizona? They built huge cities in the desert dependent on out of state resources. Same problem as California.

[SemajParlor]

It's absolutely hilarious how many posters miss the sarcasm in posts. Kills me every time when they get riled up.

I don't think I've ever posted in Out On The Mall not in tongue in cheek.

[bjf123]

It's absolutely hilarious how many posters miss the sarcasm in posts. Kills me every time when they get riled up.

Whoever creates and licenses a sarcasm font will make a boatload of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[X-man]

It's absolutely hilarious how many posters miss the sarcasm in posts. Kills me every time when they get riled up.

Are you saying that all those climate change "denyers" are just kidding and actually believe that carbon emissions are warming the climate? I would be relieved to hear that if you are right.

[Masterofreality]

Are you saying that all those climate change "denyers" are just kidding and actually believe that carbon emissions are warming the climate? I would be relieved to hear that if you are right.

Yes. This thread is all just a nefarious plot to make Muskie and Svoboda aircraft carrier's of money by getting more eyeballs to the site. :tonguewag:

[XU 87]

Are you saying that all those climate change "denyers" are just kidding and actually believe that carbon emissions are warming the climate? I would be relieved to hear that if you are right.

The real deniers are those of you who refuse to recognize that global cooling is hitting the Midwest, Northeast and now Wyoming.

[XU 87]

Today's ski report for Wyoming:

http://www.onthesnow.com/wyoming/grand-targhee-resort/ski-resort.html

for those of you who prefer to ski in Colorado in late April:

https://www.google.com/#q=colorado+ski+report

And here is Utah's:

https://www.google.com/#q=utah+ski+report

Bundle up if you're going to Snowbird. It's 6 degrees there today. Brrrr. And wear your goggles, it's snowing there too.

[ChicagoX]

The real deniers are those of you who refuse to recognize that global cooling is hitting the Midwest, Northeast and now Wyoming.

If you're not a lawyer, then you should reconsider your current profession and go into law school. You're a natural.

[Masterofreality]

What really is hilarious is that every time there is a weather event that allegedly enhances the Climate Change argument, the Purveyors of Pap jump all over it as if it is proof, but when any weather event like April snow in Wyoming that disproves their narrative comes up, it is dismissed out of hand as just "weather".

[X-man]

What really is hilarious is that every time there is a weather event that allegedly enhances the Climate Change argument, the Purveyors of Pap jump all over it as if it is proof, but when any weather event like April snow in Wyoming that disproves their narrative comes up, it is dismissed out of hand as just "weather".

Examples please. None of the "usual culprits", i.e. the IPCC, do that. And as near as I can tell, only people like MOR and XU87 want to claim that cooler weather in a few places trumps warmer weather everywhere else and therefore should be viewed as more than "just weather".

[Masterofreality]

Examples please. None of the "usual culprits", i.e. the IPCC, do that. And as near as I can tell, only people like MOR and XU87 want to claim that cooler weather in a few places trumps warmer weather everywhere else and therefore should be viewed as more than "just weather".

You must obviously never watch the national network evening news. Just check the stories whenever there is a big event. Always an allusion to "climate change" possibilities and how "it is possible that these kinds events will increase".

[muskienick]

You must obviously never watch the national network evening news. Just check the stories whenever there is a big event. Always an allusion to "climate change" possibilities and how "it is possible that these kinds events will increase".


I somehow must have missed that plethora of reports from the network news talking heads. I didn't realize that the Dan Rather types of today were climatologists in addition to being wildly liberal shills for the exorbitantly wealthy climate change scientists. (I was probably out hooking up my Tesla for its daily charge.)


Please consider letters typed bold and red as "sarcasm font."

[X-band '01]

Now now, Earth Day and Arbor Day are coming up this week. Let's celebrate nature in all her forms.

On an unrelated note, how long will it be before we have a Mars Day and a Mercury Day? (We already have a Sun Day).

[X-man]

You must obviously never watch the national network evening news. Just check the stories whenever there is a big event. Always an allusion to "climate change" possibilities and how "it is possible that these kinds events will increase".

Hypocrite, please. I am in agreement with Muskie Nick on this. And even if it were true, describing events as "climate change possibilities" is hardly stating something as "proof" of anything. But you guys are all over the idea that cooler Midwest and Northeast weather is "proof" that warming isn't happening.

[XU 87]

Hypocrite, please. I am in agreement with Muskie Nick on this. And even if it were true, describing events as "climate change possibilities" is hardly stating something as "proof" of anything. But you guys are all over the idea that cooler Midwest and Northeast weather is "proof" that warming isn't happening.

And Wyoming.

[NY44]

Today's ski report for Wyoming:

http://www.onthesnow.com/wyoming/grand-targhee-resort/ski-resort.html

for those of you who prefer to ski in Colorado in late April:

https://www.google.com/#q=colorado+ski+report

And here is Utah's:

https://www.google.com/#q=utah+ski+report

Bundle up if you're going to Snowbird. It's 6 degrees there today. Brrrr. And wear your goggles, it's snowing there too.

And what about the drought in California?

The global average temperature is and has been increasing. So go ahead, name all the places where the temperature is colder than normal and we'll be able to name many more where it is warmer. At this point, I'm really not confident you understand how averages work, so this exercise should be helpful for you.

[Masterofreality]

And what about the drought in California?

The global average temperature is and has been increasing. So go ahead, name all the places where the temperature is colder than normal and we'll be able to name many more where it is warmer. At this point, I'm really not confident you understand how averages work, so this exercise should be helpful for you.

Uh, temperatures increasing? Maybe not.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/04/30/twenty-years-of-winter-cooling-defy-global-warming-claims/

[94GRAD]

I had to hurt the heat on today at Dana's, just saying

[X-man]

Uh, temperatures increasing? Maybe not.

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/04/30/twenty-years-of-winter-cooling-defy-global-warming-claims/

Careful. The first citation doesn't say the globe is cooling now. It says there was a cooling period thousands of years ago which appear inconsistent with the modeling. Just saying.

[xu82]

I had to hurt the heat on today at Dana's, just saying

Cold beer is better on a hot day (inside Dana's, or for real outside).

Oh..... just saying.

[XU 87]

And what about the drought in California?

The global average temperature is and has been increasing. So go ahead, name all the places where the temperature is colder than normal and we'll be able to name many more where it is warmer. At this point, I'm really not confident you understand how averages work, so this exercise should be helpful for you.

Since you live in New York, I suspect the western state ski reports are of no value to you. So see below.

https://www.google.com/#q=vermont+ski+report

It's been so cold lately, I bet you may have another month of skiing up there.

[NY44]

Since you live in New York, I suspect the western state ski reports are of no value to you. So see below.

https://www.google.com/#q=vermont+ski+report

It's been so cold lately, I bet you may have another month of skiing up there.

As some have mentioned the jet stream has dipped, meaning more snow in the area. So places like Alaska are low on snow:

Anchorage snowfall so far this winter is 2nd-lowest on record (http://www.adn.com/article/20150211/anchorage-snowfall-so-far-winter-2nd-lowest-record)

Or you could look at Tahoe City, California. Where they generally get 45 inches in January and got 0 this year:

Dire News for Sierra Snowpack (http://www.weather.com/news/weather/video/dire-news-for-sierra-snowpack)

[XU 87]

As some have mentioned the jet stream has dipped, meaning more snow in the area. So places like Alaska are low on snow:

Anchorage snowfall so far this winter is 2nd-lowest on record (http://www.adn.com/article/20150211/anchorage-snowfall-so-far-winter-2nd-lowest-record)

Or you could look at Tahoe City, California. Where they generally get 45 inches in January and got 0 this year:

Dire News for Sierra Snowpack (http://www.weather.com/news/weather/video/dire-news-for-sierra-snowpack)

What's happening is that the global cooling in the Northeast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain area is causing warming in those areas.

How far are you from the Vermont slopes? They're open with lots of snow.

[NY44]

What's happening is that the global cooling in the Northeast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain area is causing warming in those areas.

How far are you from the Vermont slopes? They're open with lots of snow.

Whats happening is that the jet stream which is cooling the Northeast is not cooling the West and Northwest. There is still snow in Vermont. Vermont had the most snow of any state. It's no secret and no one is trying to hide or deny it. You're not onto something here. The agencies who assert climate change are well aware that it has been a colder than average winter in the Northeast.

Record Warmest January to March Global Temperatures on Record - The Weather Channel (http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-march-global-temperatures-2015)

In all Global Temperature maps the Northeast is shown as colder than normal, and yet the global average temperature has still risen.

[XU 87]

Whats happening is that the jet stream which is cooling the Northeast is not cooling the West and Northwest. There is still snow in Vermont. Vermont had the most snow of any state. It's no secret and no one is trying to hide or deny it. You're not onto something here. The agencies who assert climate change are well aware that it has been a colder than average winter in the Northeast.

Record Warmest January to March Global Temperatures on Record - The Weather Channel (http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-march-global-temperatures-2015)

In all Global Temperature maps the Northeast is shown as colder than normal, and yet the global average temperature has still risen.

I understand what you're attempting to argue- that global warming causes global cooling. Your argument just doesn't make any sense. That said, if you think that global warming also causes cooling, then it is equally plausible that the cooling in the Northeast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain is causing other parts to warm up a little. Either that, or maybe different areas of the world get warmer and cooler, just as they have been doing for the last 3 billion years or so.

[X-band '01]

There are a lot more places in the world that were warmer than normal than there were places that were cooler than normal in that timeframe. I don't dispute that.

Again, the million-dollar question is how much of that is natural climate change and how much of that is due to man-made tinkering of the environment.

[X-man]

I understand what you're attempting to argue- that global warming causes global cooling. Your argument just doesn't make any sense. That said, if you think that global warming also causes cooling, then it is equally plausible that the cooling in the Northeast, Midwest and Rocky Mountain is causing other parts to warm up a little. Either that, or maybe different areas of the world get warmer and cooler, just as they have been doing for the last 3 billion years or so.
No one, and I repeat NO ONE, is making that argument. Work a little harder on your reading comprehension skills.

[XU 87]

No one, and I repeat NO ONE, is making that argument. Work a little harder on your reading comprehension skills.

So you are in fact admitting that the world really is getting cooler in many places?

[muskiefan82]

if the ice caps are warming and the ice is breaking off and floating towards the equator, wouldn't that make those areas colder? My drinks get colder when I add ice. It just makes sense that an increase in temp in one place might create a lower temp elsewhere. Maybe. I also don't really care that much. We either have or will have the technology to survive on this rock in the future or we won't.

[ChicagoX]

So you are in fact admitting that the world really is getting cooler in many places?

I wouldn't say "many" places, mostly just the eastern section of North America was cooler than normal. The other 90% of the planet was warmer during the December-February period you're referring to.

Your statement would be more accurate if it read "Global warming/climate change is contributing to the regional cooling in the eastern half of North America during the winter months."

Warmer ocean temps in the Pacific have helped create wavy jet stream patterns which have allowed very cold polar air from the Arctic to plunge south into the Midwest and Northeast. Those jet stream patterns have also contributed to the record heat and drought in the western half of the country. My source is Tom Skilling, a meteorologist at WGN.


Land & Ocean Temp Percentiles Dec 2014 - Feb 2015 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201412-201502.gif)

I expect a full rebuttal using your mad lawyer skills.

[X-band '01]

I wouldn't say "many" places, mostly just the eastern section of North America was cooler than normal. The other 90% of the planet was warmer during the December-February period you're referring to.

Your statement would be more accurate if it read "Global warming/climate change is contributing to the regional cooling in the eastern half of North America during the winter months."

Warmer ocean temps in the Pacific have helped create wavy jet stream patterns which have allowed very cold polar air from the Arctic to plunge south into the Midwest and Northeast. Those jet stream patterns have also contributed to the record heat and drought in the western half of the country. My source is Tom Skilling, a meteorologist at WGN.


Land & Ocean Temp Percentiles Dec 2014 - Feb 2015 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201412-201502.gif)

I expect a full rebuttal using your _LH skills.

Fixed that for you.

[ammtd34]

I also don't really care that much. We either have or will have the technology to survive on this rock in the future or we won't.

This is where I am.

[XU 87]

I wouldn't say "many" places, mostly just the eastern section of North America was cooler than normal. The other 90% of the planet was warmer during the December-February period you're referring to.

Your statement would be more accurate if it read "Global warming/climate change is contributing to the regional cooling in the eastern half of North America during the winter months."

Warmer ocean temps in the Pacific have helped create wavy jet stream patterns which have allowed very cold polar air from the Arctic to plunge south into the Midwest and Northeast. Those jet stream patterns have also contributed to the record heat and drought in the western half of the country. My source is Tom Skilling, a meteorologist at WGN.


Land & Ocean Temp Percentiles Dec 2014 - Feb 2015 (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/map-percentile-mntp/201412-201502.gif)

I expect a full rebuttal using your mad lawyer skills.

THE Tom Skilling? Why didn't you just say so? I didn't know Tom Skilling, WGN meteorologist, was your source.

One question- who the hell is Tom Skilling? I've never heard of him.

P.S. I just read up on THE Tom Skilling. He is the older brother of former Enron chairman, Jeff Skilling, who is currently in jail for fraud and other insider trading charges. That tells me the Skillings have bad genes and are prone to making things up to serve their purposes.

[ChicagoX]

THE Tom Skilling? Why didn't you just say so? I didn't know Tom Skilling, WGN meteorologist, was your source.

One question- who the hell is Tom Skilling? I've never heard of him.

P.S. I just read up on THE Tom Skilling. He is the older brother of former Enron chairman, Jeff Skilling, who is currently in jail for fraud and other insider trading charges. That tells me the Skillings have bad genes and are prone to making things up to serve their purposes.

There is only one Tom Skilling. People wish they could be Tom Skilling...especially his brother who is serving time at the federal clink in Colorado.

In all seriousness, he's been at WGN for something like 35 years and is Chicago's most beloved and trusted weatherman. Surely he wouldn't lie about wavy jet streams!

[XU 87]

There is only one Tom Skilling. People wish they could be Tom Skilling...especially his brother who is serving time at the federal clink in Colorado.

In all seriousness, he's been at WGN for something like 35 years and is Chicago's most beloved and trusted weatherman. Surely he wouldn't lie about wavy jet streams!

I'm telling you- he can't be trusted. It's in the Skilling gene pool. It can't be avoided.

[Masterofreality]

37 degrees in Cleveland right now.

25 degrees in Yakutsk Russia. Sunny though

48 degrees in Seoul, South Korea Hazy.

Warming........Globally

[NY44]

37 degrees in Cleveland right now.

25 degrees in Yakutsk Russia. Sunny though

48 degrees in Seoul, South Korea Hazy.

Warming........Globally

Changing..........Climate

[XU 87]

Changing..........Climate

It's 40 degrees today in downtown Cincinnati. So remember, if you get that job, dress warmly. We're experiencing global cooling.

[Masterofreality]

Hypocrite, please. I am in agreement with Muskie Nick on this. And even if it were true, describing events as "climate change possibilities" is hardly stating something as "proof" of anything. But you guys are all over the idea that cooler Midwest and Northeast weather is "proof" that warming isn't happening.

No more "all over" the idea than the Climate Change protagonists were when the lakes in the Southeast- especially Georgia- we're at record lows and the constant reason cited was "global warming" ....all....the....time. ALARM....ALARM!!!!! Well, look at those lakes and water supply now. No problems and no more talk about Georgia diverting water from Alabama or Florida.

Can't have it both ways.

[X-man]

No more "all over" the idea than the Climate Change protagonists were when the lakes in the Southeast- especially Georgia- we're at record lows and the constant reason cited was "global warming" ....all....the....time. ALARM....ALARM!!!!! Well, look at those lakes and water supply now. No problems and no more talk about Georgia diverting water from Alabama or Florida.

Can't have it both ways.
Ya know, I just don't recall anyone on the side worried about climate change to ever assert that any particular event is "proof" of change occurring. But you guys are constantly asserting "proof" to the contrary. Nothing is known on this subject with certainty; all objective observers can do is assess probabilities based upon evidence rather than dogma.

[xu82]

INSOLUBLE!

wrong thread?

[muskiefan82]

INSOLUBLE!

wrong thread?

Indubitably

[xu82]

Indubitably

Or maybe not?

[GoMuskies]

We're under a tornado watch. In Wichita, KS. In April! I blame global warming, global cooling and climate change. All of them.

[xu82]

We're under a tornado watch. In Wichita, KS. In April! I blame global warming, global cooling and climate change. All of them.

If a witch flies by on a bicycle, you should blame her too. She may be the culprit.

[paulxu]

Well, it's free. That's something.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/21/university-offering-free-online-course-to-demolish-climate-denial

[XU 87]

This is good to know:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2015/04/25/low-temperatures-heating-ok/26356205/

[muskienick]

This is good to know:

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/weather/2015/04/25/low-temperatures-heating-ok/26356205/

It is early spring. I will reconsider my stance on Climate Change if we start to consistently get weather like this for an extended period of time during July and August.

[Lloyd Braun]

It is early spring. I will reconsider my stance on Climate Change if we start to consistently get weather like this for an extended period of time during July and August.

Those that refuse to acknowledge the existence of climate change are in the overwhelming minority of the general population and academic world. Weather and climate are not the same thing and using a single day's weather in a specific location to prove or disprove a climate is laughable. It's a shame that politics has "clouded" the issue. (Sorry bad pun, couldn't help myself)

[GoMuskies]

Average temperatures are on the rise in Baltimore right now.

[xu82]

It was warmer today in Atlanta than it was yesterday. You're welcome for that insight.

[Masterofreality]

I have found the answer to my initial question - Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.

Heading there from Cleveburg today. 56 high on the Northcoast, 84 high on the Atlantic Coast.

[fellahmuskie]

34 this morning in Cincy. Also, 73 right now in Moscow. I may have made a mistake coming back to the Midwest.

[Masterofreality]

Time Magazine: June 24, 1974:

"Another Ice Age

In Africa, drought continues for the sixth consecutive year, adding terribly to the toll of famine victims. During 1972 record rains in parts of the U.S., Pakistan and Japan caused some of the worst flooding in centuries. In Canada's wheat belt, a particularly chilly and rainy spring has delayed planting and may well bring a disappointingly small harvest. Rainy Britain, on the other hand, has suffered from uncharacteristic dry spells the past few springs. A series of unusually cold winters has gripped the American Far West, while New England and northern Europe have recently experienced the mildest winters within anyone's recollection.

As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval. However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

Telltale signs are everywhere —from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest.Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has dropped about 2.7° F. Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since. Areas of Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, for example, were once totally free of any snow in summer; now they are covered year round."

[Lloyd Braun]

89 degrees in Cleveland right now. That's pretty warm!

[bobbiemcgee]

Those that refuse to acknowledge the existence of climate change are in the overwhelming minority of the general population and academic world. Weather and climate are not the same thing and using a single day's weather in a specific location to prove or disprove a climate is laughable. It's a shame that politics has "clouded" the issue. (Sorry bad pun, couldn't help myself)

You get fired in Fla. if you even mention it:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html

[94GRAD]

Global warming is getting closer to Cincinnati. It's been 2 degrees off record highs the last 2 days

[xu82]

Global warming is getting closer to Cincinnati. It's been 2 degrees off record highs the last 2 days

Sounds like perfect weather for a nice cold beer. Hmmm, I wonder where....

[Strange Brew]

Global warming is getting closer to Cincinnati. It's been 2 degrees off record highs the last 2 days

Please point your SUV tailpipes west today. 5-12 in of snow expected in Denver tonight.

[PM Thor]

If the tiny segment of population, like the Fracking industry, can cause earthquakes, like it's been proven to do, then how hard is it to believe that the whole of humanity doesn't affect the environment? Why are people so dead set against even considering this? Especially considering the worlds scientists as a huge majority prove that it is happening? What do you people want to prove it? A hurricane a week? A snowless winter for Buffalo? When is proof good enough?

[Strange Brew]

If the tiny segment of population, like the Fracking industry, can cause earthquakes, like it's been proven to do, then how hard is it to believe that the whole of humanity doesn't affect the environment? Why are people so dead set against even considering this? Especially considering the worlds scientists as a huge majority prove that it is happening? What do you people want to prove it? A hurricane a week? A snowless winter for Buffalo? When is proof good enough?

Hahaha, so true. Wait, you don't actually believe that do you?

[X-man]

Please point your SUV tailpipes west today. 5-12 in of snow expected in Denver tonight.

So is global cooling in Denver causing global warming in the Midwest? Just sayin'.

[muskienick]

I think I'll start a new thread just for those who support the theory that no climate change or global warming is upon us. I will call it:
FOR ALCHEMISTS AND FLAT WORLD BELIEVERS ONLY!

[Masterofreality]

I think I'll start a new thread just for those who support the theory that no climate change or global warming is upon us. I will call it:
FOR ALCHEMISTS AND FLAT WORLD BELIEVERS ONLY!

Climate changes all the time.

It's not little men that cause it, no matter how much hubris human beings have to think that they do. Nature is huge, man is tiny.

[Strange Brew]

Climate changes all the time.

It's not little men that cause it, no matter how much hubris human beings have to think that they do. Nature is huge, man is tiny.

Shhhh, you'll ruin it for the modern alchemists attempting to monetize carbon.

[DC Muskie]

Climate changes all the time.

It's not little men that cause it, no matter how much hubris human beings have to think that they do. Nature is huge, man is tiny.

So you don't believe in the existence of smog?

[Strange Brew]

So you don't believe in the existence of smog?

Sure, there's smog in the warm summer months but what does that have to do with climate?

[DC Muskie]

Sure, there's smog in the warm summer months but what does that have to do with climate?

Is that like a serious question, or are you trying to make a terrible joke?

[Strange Brew]

Is that like a serious question, or are you trying to make a terrible joke?

How does smog affect the climate? Seriously, I'd like you to explain what smog is composed of and how it changes the climate.

[DC Muskie]

How does smog affect the climate? Seriously, I'd like you to explain what smog is composed of and how it changes the climate.

Happy to. Here's my response:


Sure, there's smog in the warm summer months...

Now do you think humans don't play a role in the creation of smog? It seems you and MOR don't think so. Maybe I have it wrong. I'm sure if I do, you will straighten everything out.

[Strange Brew]

Happy to. Here's my response:



Now do you think humans don't play a role in the creation of smog? It seems you and MOR don't think so. Maybe I have it wrong. I'm sure if I do, you will straighten everything out.

Yes, smog occurs after it is hot it does not make it hotter. It is a result of heat, not the cause of it.

For the record, not a fan of smog and I'm happy it has been greatly reduced over the past 50 years but please don't confuse it's existence as proof of man made climate change.

[DC Muskie]

Yes, smog occurs after it is hot it does not make it hotter. It is a result of heat, not the cause of it.

For the record, not a fan of smog and I'm happy it has been greatly reduced over the past 50 years but please don't confuse it's existence as proof of man made climate change.

I'm not holding a position on anything. I find this thread absolutely hilarious. I just saw MOR's comment that humans don't effect climate as hilarious.

You're happy that smog has been reduced over the past 50 years. Why exactly? What are you happy about? That reduction of smog has made summers less hot? Or that there is less air pollution? And is air pollution a bad thing?

Another question if you don't mind. Is smog mostly man made? If not, how did we reduce smog so greatly over the past 50 years? I'm taking it that you think smog is a bad thing? I tend to agree. I hate smog.

[Strange Brew]

I'm not holding a position on anything. I find this thread absolutely hilarious. I just saw MOR's comment that humans don't effect climate as hilarious.

You're happy that smog has been reduced over the past 50 years. Why exactly? What are you happy about? That reduction of smog has made summers less hot? Or that there is less air pollution? And is air pollution a bad thing?

Another question if you don't mind. Is smog mostly man made? If not, how did we reduce smog so greatly over the past 50 years? I'm taking it that you think smog is a bad thing? I tend to agree. I hate smog.

Sigh, didn't say that smog was not partly created by humans. Neither did MOR. You asked him if humans created smog. He stated humans do not affect the climate. Since you brought up smog please explain how it changes climate. If you can't, MORs point stands.

[DC Muskie]

Sigh, didn't say that smog was not partly created by humans. Neither did MOR. You asked him if humans created smog. He stated humans do not affect the climate. Since you brought up smog please explain how it changes climate. If you can't, MORs point stands.

I'm not expert, you, MOR and the people on the other side obviously are. With your scientific expertise I might add.

I do find it interesting that we can shoot pollution into the air, create smog, and yet somehow not affect climate. We can affect the weather, and you are happy that over the past 50 years having smog reduced. But yet when it comes to changes in climate, you come to the conclusion that there is absolutely, positively no way we as humans affect it.

Like I said, I'm not expert. We can affect the weather and have done a great job reducing smog, which is at least man made. So really I don't care about the climate, I'm more concerned about the weather. Maybe climate isn't affected at all by weather. I thought they were intertwined, but I'll leave it to you experts to explain how it's not.

I'm still interested as to why you are happy in the reduction of smog? I'm just curious. I'd like to read from an expert.

[Strange Brew]

I'm not expert, you, MOR and the people on the other side obviously are. With your scientific expertise I might add.

I do find it interesting that we can shoot pollution into the air, create smog, and yet somehow not affect climate. We can affect the weather, and you are happy that over the past 50 years having smog reduced. But yet when it comes to changes in climate, you come to the conclusion that there is absolutely, positively no way we as humans affect it.

Like I said, I'm not expert. We can affect the weather and have done a great job reducing smog, which is at least man made. So really I don't care about the climate, I'm more concerned about the weather. Maybe climate isn't affected at all by weather. I thought they were intertwined, but I'll leave it to you experts to explain how it's not.

I'm still interested as to why you are happy in the reduction of smog? I'm just curious. I'd like to read from an expert.

I'm happy we've reduced smog as it is a result of the mix of water vapor and the release of particulates not gases into the lower levels of the atmosphere. No fan of pollution but I'd love for you to explain how smog affects the climate or the weather since you brought it up.

[DC Muskie]

I'm happy we've reduced smog as it is a result of the mix of water vapor and the release of particulates not gases into the lower levels of the atmosphere. No fan of pollution but I'd love for you to explain how smog affects the climate or the weather since you brought it up.

I still don't understand. You don' think pollution at least affects the weather? I thought we had agreed on that. I mean you are happy we reduced water vapors. Would that be because the weather is more pleasant?

[Strange Brew]

I still don't understand. You don' think pollution at least affects the weather? I thought we had agreed on that. I mean you are happy we reduced water vapors. Would that be because the weather is more pleasant?

I don't think pollution affects the weather. I find it to be adverse to health which is why I'm pleased efforts have been made to reduce the amount of particulates released into the atmosphere. Please explain to me how pollution affects or changes the weather.

[DC Muskie]

I don't think pollution affects the weather. I find it to be adverse to health which is why I'm pleased efforts have been made to reduce the amount of particulates released into the atmosphere. Please explain to me how pollution affects or changes the weather.

Oh. Sorry, I thought you thought pollution affects the weather. Hmm. That's an interesting position. So particulates released into the atmosphere is not actually weather, it's just...I don't know...annoying.

Actually if smog isn't part of weather, what is it then? There seems to be three different areas here:

1. Climate
2. Weather
3. Atmosphere

So particulates released into the atmosphere is bad, but doesn't affect the weather and it certainly doesn't affect climate. Do I have that correct? I can answer everything if I understand the perimeters.

[PM Thor]

Pollution doesn't affect the weather? That's an easy one. Particulates in pollution interacts with water droplets in the atmosphere, which in turn makes clouds bigger and denser, thus making storms more severe and far reaching.

But I'm sure you don't believe that either.

[bjf123]

Here's my take on proof or no proof of global warming. Earth has been much warmer and much cooler in its history. In the last 1000 years, it's been both and I doubt if the planet's much smaller population back then was the cause.

If you remember back in the early 70s, scientists were convinced we were headed for an ice age and there would be massive global starvation before the turn of the century. Didn't happen We've had scientists telling us the bird flu or some other new disease was going to cause a global pandemic and most of us would be dead. Didn't happen.

What are these scientists looking for? Research funding, pure and simple. What better way to get funding than to convince those with money that the world is ending without more research into the problem.

The difference between past doomsday predictions and today? We now have 24 hour news channels that have to fill time. We have the Internet and all of the social media that goes with it. That's keeping everything in front of a lot of people.

One thing I find funny is that the Left is saying those scientists and others who disagree with the "vast majority" are clueless. Yet, these same people will believe Jenny Garth and a few scientists who say vaccinations are evil and killing our kids, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DC Muskie]

We had scientists telling us bird flu was going to kill us? And all they wanted was more research money? To research bird flu? And when we didn't die from bird flu, that was merely luck?

I'm learning so much in this thread.

Maybe if we stop researching stuff we will stop arguing or being scared of anything. Nature is huge and we human are small.

[Strange Brew]

Pollution doesn't affect the weather? That's an easy one. Particulates in pollution interacts with water droplets in the atmosphere, which in turn makes clouds bigger and denser, thus making storms more severe and far reaching.

But I'm sure you don't believe that either.

That's an interesting theory. I guess that explains why hurricanes become more intense over areas of heavy pollution. Man, the air over the warm, moist oceans must be filthy. Probably too many humans living in Waterworld these days.

[94GRAD]

That's an interesting theory. I guess that explains why hurricanes become more intense over areas of heavy pollution. Man, the air over the warm, moist oceans must be filthy. Probably too many humans living in Waterworld these days.

That's a terrible analogy. You're better than that

[xu82]

That's a terrible analogy. You're better than that

Any mention of Waterworld is a terrible thing...

[bobbiemcgee]

Mama's day in Denver, so that means 7" of snow. All gone now, of course.

[PM Thor]

That's an interesting theory. I guess that explains why hurricanes become more intense over areas of heavy pollution. Man, the air over the warm, moist oceans must be filthy. Probably too many humans living in Waterworld these days.

Are you just being snarky or are you just this obtuse?

I trust the scientists, from all over the world, from every type of political background and spectrum, over some who just aren't willing to crunch the numbers. When 97% of the scientists who study climate agree on it, I'll take their word on it over just saying it isn't happening. Hell, even the Navy calls Climate Change a threat to national security. But I'm sure they are just out looking for funding too.

[Strange Brew]

Are you just being snarky or are you just this obtuse?

I trust the scientists, from all over the world, from every type of political background and spectrum, over some who just aren't willing to crunch the numbers. When 97% of the scientists who study climate agree on it, I'll take their word on it over just saying it isn't happening. Hell, even the Navy calls Climate Change a threat to national security. But I'm sure they are just out looking for funding too.

Obtuse? I'm not the one claiming pollution and or man is increasing the intensity of storms. THAT'S obtuse.

97% of scientists???? Debunked. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

As to the military, they're not looking for funding but favor with this administration that has been purging officers that do not fall in line.

https://silentsoldier.us/2014/10/08/over-137-high-ranking-military-officers-fired-at-unpresidented-rate-military-purging/

Oh, and here's the track record for the accuracy of climate scientists.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

[PM Thor]

I don't think an op-ed from the WSJ debunks anything. Actually that makes me feel even better stating the 97% number that's out there.

And yes, you are being obtuse. Pollution affects weather, it's proven fact that particulates thrown into the atmosphere creates stronger storms. I don't even know how to debate this with you, because it's just a given that this happens. Haven't you ever heard of cloud seeding? That's the most simplistic way to show you how particulates can change weather.

Anyway, I don't think you are willing to accept that Climate Change is occurring, luckily, you and I have no say in the way that nations as a whole go about dealing with this ever increasing problem. If I may ask, what would it take for you to acknowledge that it is happening? Like I said before, a hurricane a week? Mega-tornadoes every day in the Midwest? What would convince Climate Change deniers that it is happening?

[Strange Brew]

I don't think an op-ed from the WSJ debunks anything. Actually that makes me feel even better stating the 97% number that's out there.

And yes, you are being obtuse. Pollution affects weather, it's proven fact that particulates thrown into the atmosphere creates stronger storms. I don't even know how to debate this with you, because it's just a given that this happens.

Anyway, I don't think you are willing to accept that Climate Change is occurring, luckily, you and I have no say in the way that nations as a whole go about dealing with this ever increasing problem. If I may ask, what would it take for you to acknowledge that it is happening? Like I said before, a hurricane a week? Mega-tornadoes every day in the Midwest? What would convince Climate Change deniers that it is happening?

Yes, I'm familiar with cloud seeding and it's effectiveness is up for debate by scientists. So, even when we deliberately try to alter the weather we tiny humans suck at it.

Don't like the WSJ? Fine, here's one from Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Mega tornadoes?? There were more F4 and F5 tornadoes pre 1975 than since.

Ever increasing problem????? The temperature has stayed constant in statistical terms for the last 20 years despite an increase in CO2. What would it take for you to admit the predictions of climate scientists were incorrect?

By your statements I'm hoping you're just messing with me. If so, well done.

[PM Thor]

Forbes and WSJ. Bastions of apolitical discourse I tell ya. I'll put it this way, I hope you are right and I'm wrong, although based on what a vast majority of scientific, peer reviewed studies put forth on the subject, your position is in the tiny minority. And yet you look to temperature variance over a tiny 20 year sample size as a proof that global climate change is not happening? That doesn't make any sense. Temperature is not the end all, be all bellweather of Climate Change. I also would like a source for both your temperature variance stance and your tornado assertion.

And for the record, the Fujita scale for measuring tornadoes wasn't even introduced until 1971, so the ratings of prior tornadoes was applied retroactively based on level of damage...soooo that obviously means that the way they were judged to be F1 to F5 was highly subjective. It's different now, by the way.

[Strange Brew]

Forbes and WSJ. Bastions of apolitical discourse I tell ya. I'll put it this way, I hope you are right and I'm wrong, although based on what a vast majority of scientific, peer reviewed studies put forth on the subject, your position is in the tiny minority. And yet you look to temperature variance over a tiny 20 year sample size as a proof that global climate change is not happening? That doesn't make any sense. Temperature is not the end all, be all bellweather of Climate Change. I also would like a source for both your temperature variance stance and your tornado assertion.

And for the record, the Fujita scale for measuring tornadoes wasn't even introduced until 1971, so the ratings of prior tornadoes was applied retroactively based on level of damage...soooo that obviously means that the way they were judged to be F1 to F5 was highly subjective. It's different now, by the way.


One of many sources on the "pause in global warming": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

The tornado assertion came from the vast right wing conspiracy site Wikipedia

What is the bellweather of climate and what length of time would constitute a large enough sample size? Also, what is the "correct" average global temperature of the planet?

And if the Fujita scale is subjective how can you possibly claim the tornadoes of today are "mega"?

[X-man]

Here's my take on proof or no proof of global warming. Earth has been much warmer and much cooler in its history. In the last 1000 years, it's been both and I doubt if the planet's much smaller population back then was the cause.

If you remember back in the early 70s, scientists were convinced we were headed for an ice age and there would be massive global starvation before the turn of the century. Didn't happen We've had scientists telling us the bird flu or some other new disease was going to cause a global pandemic and most of us would be dead. Didn't happen.

What are these scientists looking for? Research funding, pure and simple. What better way to get funding than to convince those with money that the world is ending without more research into the problem.

The difference between past doomsday predictions and today? We now have 24 hour news channels that have to fill time. We have the Internet and all of the social media that goes with it. That's keeping everything in front of a lot of people.

One thing I find funny is that the Left is saying those scientists and others who disagree with the "vast majority" are clueless. Yet, these same people will believe Jenny Garth and a few scientists who say vaccinations are evil and killing our kids, in spite of mountains of evidence to the contrary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
WTF! Now I know you are clueless.

[PM Thor]

There is no bellweather. Climate Change uses multiple aspects to determine a conglomerate answer. Picking and choosing parts of the whole to try to prove that it doesn't exist is what you are doing. Also, I would like your proof of those assertions about temperature and number of tornadoes please.

I don't know what the "correct" average global temperature should be, because there is no answer to that, and I know you know that too. Yes, the Fujita scale is subjective, yet you were the one claiming there were more prior to '75. And I never said tornadoes now are "mega", I asked if it would take mega tornadoes on a regular basis, along with other dramatic events, to happen for climate deniers to change their minds.

[DC Muskie]

Oh. Sorry, I thought you thought pollution affects the weather. Hmm. That's an interesting position. So particulates released into the atmosphere is not actually weather, it's just...I don't know...annoying.

Actually if smog isn't part of weather, what is it then? There seems to be three different areas here:

1. Climate
2. Weather
3. Atmosphere

So particulates released into the atmosphere is bad, but doesn't affect the weather and it certainly doesn't affect climate. Do I have that correct? I can answer everything if I understand the perimeters.

I'm still tying to learn the perimeters.

[DC Muskie]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/.

This is fascinating....

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Most skeptics believe humans have caused some global warming. But it's really not that big of deal.

I've never seen that before. I'm learning so much here.

[PM Thor]

One of many sources on the "pause in global warming": http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html

I'm not sure you vetted your source very well since that very article admits that Climate Change is real and occurring, only not at the level that was forecasted over a decade ago. So in fact, you just gave another source that says Climate Change is real. Lest you forget, the IPCC doesn't even do it's own research, but that's lost in the shuffle of the headline.

[Strange Brew]

There is no bellweather. Climate Change uses multiple aspects to determine a conglomerate answer. Picking and choosing parts of the whole to try to prove that it doesn't exist is what you are doing. Also, I would like your proof of those assertions about temperature and number of tornadoes please.

I don't know what the "correct" average global temperature should be, because there is no answer to that, and I know you know that too. Yes, the Fujita scale is subjective, yet you were the one claiming there were more prior to '75. And I never said tornadoes now are "mega", I asked if it would take mega tornadoes on a regular basis, along with other dramatic events, to happen for climate deniers to change their minds.

What are the multiple aspects of the conglomerate answer and how is man manipulating them?

[Strange Brew]

I'm still tying to learn the perimeters.

Stop arguing with yourself and explain how smog changes the climate.

[Strange Brew]

I'm not sure you vetted your source very well since that very article admits that Climate Change is real and occurring, only not at the level that was forecasted over a decade ago. So in fact, you just gave another source that says Climate Change is real. Lest you forget, the IPCC doesn't even do it's own research, but that's lost in the shuffle of the headline.

Sure, the climates of the Earth change. Always have and always will. Please explain how pollution or man is causing it.

[Strange Brew]

This is fascinating....

The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.

Most skeptics believe humans have caused some global warming. But it's really not that big of deal.

I've never seen that before. I'm learning so much here.

Hmm, so now we've gone from humans are going to cause terrible, horrible climate shifts to accepting that humans may, have, er, some affect on climate.

Great, progress! Can we now stop trying to eliminate efficient sources of energy to appease your Earth god?

Remember, according to leftists a nuclear power plant is a right in Iran but will destroy the world if built in the US.

[DC Muskie]

Stop arguing with yourself and explain how smog changes the climate.

Okay I guess you're not going to answer the question.

[DC Muskie]

Hmm, so now we've gone from humans are going to cause terrible, horrible climate shifts to accepting that humans may, have, er, some affect on climate.

Great, progress! Can we now stop trying to eliminate efficient sources of energy to appease your Earth god?

Remember, according to leftists a nuclear power plant is a right in Iran but will destroy the world if built in the US.

I have no idea what this rant even means. I just thought it was interesting that this article points out that most skeptics believe humans cause some global warming, but the arguments are mostly centered around how much damage has been done.

If you want to focus on the "left" and "right" of this issue, have at it. Personally I have zero interest in that. I'm still trying to understand what smog actually is if it's not weather. And since you pointed out it's pollution into the atmosphere, is atmosphere different than weather, and therefore different from climate?

Again, if I understood what your perimeters are, I could answer your repeated question.

[NY44]

Great, progress! Can we now stop trying to eliminate efficient sources of energy to appease your Earth god?

Very confused what "efficient sources of energy" you think people are trying to eliminate. There's no way you believe things like oil and coal are efficient.

[XU 87]

[QUOTE=NY44;506059]Very confused what "efficient sources of energy" you think people are trying to eliminate. There's no way you believe things like oil and coal are efficient.[/QUOTE

Right now, They are efficient. Wind and solar are not.

[Strange Brew]

I'm still tying to learn the perimeters.

How does smog change

1. Climate
2. Weather
3. It clearly dirties the lower levels of the atmosphere so I'll save you the time

MOR pointed out that man is not changing the climate and you brought up smog. I'd like you to enlighten the board on how smog changes weather and climate.. Does smog increase average temps? Does it increase the amount of precipitation received by a region?

[NY44]

Right now, They are efficient. Wind and solar are not.

Efficient as in energy input vs energy output?

[XU 87]

Efficient as in energy input vs energy output?

Energy output as related to actual cost for said energy output. In addition, solar and wind (and battery operated vehicles)cannot come close to meeting our current energy needs.

[NY44]

Energy output as related to actual cost for said energy output. In addition, solar and wind (and battery operated vehicles)cannot come close to meeting our current energy needs.

Well obviously there is an initial investment and implementation. But you need to compare implementing cost combined with the ultimate drop in energy prices compared to oil costs, which will eventually start rising again as the world supply shrinks.

[X-man]

Energy output as related to actual cost for said energy output. In addition, solar and wind (and battery operated vehicles)cannot come close to meeting our current energy needs.

You are presuming of course that "actual cost" in fact is an accurate measure of said cost. Ever hear of externalities?

[XU 87]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808868/Wind-farms-never-lights-Study-claims-turbines-expensive-deeply-inefficient.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/wind-energy-is-extraordinarily-expensive-and-inefficient/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

[ChicagoX]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2808868/Wind-farms-never-lights-Study-claims-turbines-expensive-deeply-inefficient.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/06/wind-energy-is-extraordinarily-expensive-and-inefficient/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

Interesting sources from a couple of these articles:

-Article 1: A new study published by the right-leaning Adam Smith Institute and the Scientific Alliance argues the green energy revolution has been an expensive folly.

-Article 2: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

[paulxu]

I give you an "externality." In the Hughes article debunking wind power in favor of gas for generating electricity, he conveniently forgot the externality of the cost of the gas itself.

I can see our great grandkids, faced with oil/gas running out (and nobody denies there is a limit to them) reading these pages and saying, "what the hell were they even thinking."

I'll be back; I gotta go check out this round earth nonsense.

[ChicagoX]

Here is a more recent article on Germany's success moving away from fossil fuels:

Germany Proves Life With Less Fossil Fuel Getting Easier (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-12/germany-proves-life-with-less-fossil-fuel-getting-easier)

This is something everyone should be cheering, not disparaging. Moving toward cleaner sources of energy is a good thing, unless you are employed or profit from fossil fuel companies. For everyone else, this is a winner.

[XU 87]

Interesting sources from a couple of these articles:

-Article 1: A new study published by the right-leaning Adam Smith Institute and the Scientific Alliance argues the green energy revolution has been an expensive folly.

-Article 2: The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming. The Independent describes the foundation as "the UK's most prominent source of climate-change denial".

The articles are accurate. If green energies were cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, we would be almost entirely be using green energies, not fossil fuels, and we wouldn't have to subsidize the green energies.

[X-man]

The articles are accurate. If green energies were cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, we would be almost entirely be using green energies, not fossil fuels, and we wouldn't have to subsidize the green energies.

Not if the costs of energy from fossil fuels actually included all the costs. Ever hear of externalities?

[XU 87]

Not if the costs of energy from fossil fuels actually included all the costs. Ever hear of externalities?

Ever heard the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it."

In short, it is your choice to ignore the facts. It is a fact that green energies are more expensive and less productive than fossil fuels. It's kind of silly that you're trying to argue otherwise.

[X-man]

Ever heard the phrase, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it."

In short, it is your choice to ignore the facts. It is a fact that green energies are more expensive and less productive than fossil fuels. It's kind of silly that you're trying to argue otherwise.

Ever hear of external costs? By definition, since you refuse to acknowledge their possibility, these are costs not built into the production cost (and therefore pricing of the product) because they can be ignored by the producer. For example acid rain, created by power emissions before they were regulated by (gasp) the EPA, created costs downwind in environmental damage (trees, wildlife...stuff you don't appear to care about) but also cars and people (perhaps you do care about them). In other words, "cheap power" was only cheap because said costs were not priced into the product. Now suppose that the costs of carbon emissions were factored into "cheap fossil fuels". It might change the competitiveness of said fossil fuels. It is your choice to ignore the logic and facts of this argument. It's kind of silly that you are doing so.

[ChicagoX]

The articles are accurate. If green energies were cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels, we would be almost entirely be using green energies, not fossil fuels, and we wouldn't have to subsidize the green energies.

It takes investment in research and development in the manner that Germany and Nordic countries have done to get to the point where green energies are cheaper and more efficient. The U.S. is too busy giving handouts to fossil fuel companies because one of our political parties is completely in their back pocket. There hasn't been nearly enough investment in green energy, particularly in comparison to the amount of money and tax breaks given to the major oil companies.

But screw it, let's keep polluting the planet so fossil fuel companies can continue to make record profits every year. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want us to do since the Earth is a "gift from God." For as much as conservatives claim to be the religious party of this country, they sure don't act like it. Simply hiding behind stances on gay marriage and abortion doesn't change the fact that their platform is the antithesis of Jesus' teachings when it comes to caring for the planet, economics, treatment of the poor and minorities, and investment in education.

-The Earth might be God's greatest gift to the world, but let's continue to pollute it because it's profitable and investment in clean energy might lessen the profits of the energy companies.

-Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime apparently means cut education funding and after-school programs so you can make up for funding gaps caused by slashing corporate taxes that causes budget shortfalls.

-Clothe the naked and feed the poor apparently means slash funding for the poor and hungry so the wealthy can continue to get tax write-offs for their yachts as second homes and corporations can stash their profits overseas to evade paying taxes.

-Heal the sick means doing everything possible to overturn a healthcare law that is steadily lowering the uninsured rate.

-Peace on Earth apparently means starting manufactured wars for corporate profit like the debacle in Iraq and making gun laws as loose as possible.

It will be very interesting to see conservative reactions to Pope Francis when he addresses Congress in September. I don't think they are going to like what he has to say about their economic and environmental platforms.

[XU 87]

It takes investment in research and development in the manner that Germany and Nordic countries have done to get to the point where green energies are cheaper and more efficient. The U.S. is too busy giving handouts to fossil fuel companies because one of our political parties is completely in their back pocket. There hasn't been nearly enough investment in green energy, particularly in comparison to the amount of money and tax breaks given to the major oil companies.

But screw it, let's keep polluting the planet so fossil fuel companies can continue to make record profits every year. I'm sure that's what Jesus would want us to do since the Earth is a "gift from God." For as much as conservatives claim to be the religious party of this country, they sure don't act like it. Simply hiding behind stances on gay marriage and abortion doesn't change the fact that their platform is the antithesis of Jesus' teachings when it comes to caring for the planet, economics, treatment of the poor and minorities, and investment in education.

-The Earth might be God's greatest gift to the world, but let's continue to pollute it because it's profitable and investment in clean energy might lessen the profits of the energy companies.

-Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime apparently means cut education funding and after-school programs so you can make up for funding gaps caused by slashing corporate taxes that causes budget shortfalls.

-Clothe the naked and feed the poor apparently means slash funding for the poor and hungry so the wealthy can continue to get tax write-offs for their yachts as second homes and corporations can stash their profits overseas to evade paying taxes.

-Heal the sick means doing everything possible to overturn a healthcare law that is steadily lowering the uninsured rate.

-Peace on Earth apparently means starting manufactured wars for corporate profit like the debacle in Iraq and making gun laws as loose as possible.

It will be very interesting to see conservative reactions to Pope Francis when he addresses Congress in September. I don't think they are going to like what he has to say about their economic and environmental platforms.

Wow, what a post!

We went from talking about how fossil fuels are cheaper and more productive than alternative energies. Somehow that topic led you down the path that conservatives are actually evil people who are actually against the teachings of Jesus, love war AND murder, and want to see poor people die, to name a few paragraphs from your rant.

I will leave you with this:

When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

P.S. Did you know that conservatives give more to charity than liberals?

[DC Muskie]

How does smog change

1. Climate
2. Weather
3. It clearly dirties the lower levels of the atmosphere so I'll save you the time

MOR pointed out that man is not changing the climate and you brought up smog. I'd like you to enlighten the board on how smog changes weather and climate.. Does smog increase average temps? Does it increase the amount of precipitation received by a region?

I gotta say you got me. Atmosphere is not apart of the weather, and weather is not a part of climate. Climate and nature are too big to effect us.

Smog is just annoying, weather over 50 years years is not a trend, and we certainly can't affect climate and nature.

So there you go, you are where you started. I appreciate your patience and knowledge.

[DC Muskie]

Wow, what a post!

We went from talking about how fossil fuels are cheaper and more productive than alternative energies. Somehow that topic led you down the path that conservatives are actually evil people who are actually against the teachings of Jesus, love war AND murder, and want to see poor people die, to name a few paragraphs from your rant.

I will leave you with this:

When you don't like the message, shoot the messenger.

P.S. Did you know that conservatives give more to charity than liberals?

I think this post is only matched by Strange's post about the elimination of military officers.

I for one am very thankful for guys like you, Strange and MOR who just provide the message. And as someone who has spent his entire life working for nonprofits, I appreciate you pointing out that conservatives give more to charities than liberals and keeping that as the focus of the work.

You are an awesome messenger. Thank you for everything you do for the rest of us.

[Strange Brew]

I gotta say you got me. Atmosphere is not apart of the weather, and weather is not a part of climate. Climate and nature are too big to effect us.

Smog is just annoying, weather over 50 years years is not a trend, and we certainly can't affect climate and nature.

So there you go, you are where you started. I appreciate your patience and knowledge.

Dang it, I thought you had insight on how smog affects the climate.

50 years certainly constitutes a trend. As does 20 years. Of no warming. Despite increased CO2.

And to CHI X. I must have missed the passages of scripture in which Jesus advocated for the Roman gov't to increase taxes to assist the poor. Thought it was a matter of free will. I'm so relieved to know I can stop helping people b/c the gov't is taking care of it for me. That's so liberating. I could make millions and fly around on a private jet as long as I lobbied soooooo hard to increase taxes. For the record I have no problem with those who fly on private jets and make millions. I'm just sick of those who can't help judging those that do for what they do with their money. Envy is as ugly as greed.

[X-man]

Dang it, I thought you had insight on how smog affects the climate.

50 years certainly constitutes a trend. As does 20 years. Of no warming. Despite increased CO2.

And to CHI X. I must have missed the passages of scripture in which Jesus advocated for the Roman gov't to increase taxes to assist the poor. Thought it was a matter of free will. I'm so relieved to know I can stop helping people b/c the gov't is taking care of it for me. That's so liberating. I could make millions and fly around on a private jet as long as I lobbied soooooo hard to increase taxes. For the record I have no problem with those who fly on private jets and make millions. I'm just sick of those who can't help judging those that do for what they do with their money. Envy is as ugly as greed.

Not envy, dude. It's called a social compact. And I'm sorry, but "free will" just doesn't get the job done because of something called "free ridership".

[GoMuskies]

There's a social compact that says we shouldn't use private jets? Having had the chance to take a private jet a couple of times, that's one social compact I would violate over and over and over again if given the chance.

[Strange Brew]

Not envy, dude. It's called a social compact. And I'm sorry, but "free will" just doesn't get the job done because of something called "free ridership".

Ok, interesting. I must have missed learning about the social compact and how it is the law of the land. Can you please explain it? While you at it could you take a shot at explaining what you call free ridership?

[NY44]

And to CHI X. I must have missed the passages of scripture in which Jesus advocated for the Roman gov't to increase taxes to assist the poor. Thought it was a matter of free will. I'm so relieved to know I can stop helping people b/c the gov't is taking care of it for me. That's so liberating. I could make millions and fly around on a private jet as long as I lobbied soooooo hard to increase taxes. For the record I have no problem with those who fly on private jets and make millions. I'm just sick of those who can't help judging those that do for what they do with their money. Envy is as ugly as greed.

Haha be a little more dramatic. You can't.

[paulxu]

Ok, interesting. I must have missed learning about the social compact and how it is the law of the land. Can you please explain it?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[muskiefan82]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

How many of you sang this to yourselves silently as you remembered Saturday mornings and Schoolhouse Rock?

[X-man]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Thanks, Paul. I would that was obvious to everyone, but apparently not. And for Strange, here is what "free ridership" refers to: it is a situation where it is in your interest to let others do what you think everyone should do as long as you get the same benefit (but without the cost). It is why the former CEO of Duke Energy (Jim Rogers) called for mandatory carbon emission reduction policy rather then leaving it up to volunteerism by individual companies, even when all companies might agree that carbon emission reduction is worth the cost of adopting low carbon technology. When it is voluntary, no one does it because (1) if you do it alone, only you have a cost and there is no discernible impact on carbon, and (2) if everyone else does it, you can benefit from lower carbon emissions without taking on the cost of the low carbon technology yourself. You "free ride" on the actions of others. The predictable outcome of a voluntary approach is that no one adopts the technology even when all agree that it is worth it.

[Strange Brew]

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Neat, the Preamble which establishes no law or confers any rights. So basically, it's a nice introduction that carries 0 legal weight and does not create a contract.

[Strange Brew]

Thanks, Paul. I would that was obvious to everyone, but apparently not. And for Strange, here is what "free ridership" refers to: it is a situation where it is in your interest to let others do what you think everyone should do as long as you get the same benefit (but without the cost). It is why the former CEO of Duke Energy (Jim Rogers) called for mandatory carbon emission reduction policy rather then leaving it up to volunteerism by individual companies, even when all companies might agree that carbon emission reduction is worth the cost of adopting low carbon technology. When it is voluntary, no one does it because (1) if you do it alone, only you have a cost and there is no discernible impact on carbon, and (2) if everyone else does it, you can benefit from lower carbon emissions without taking on the cost of the low carbon technology yourself. You "free ride" on the actions of others. The predictable outcome of a voluntary approach is that no one adopts the technology even when all agree that it is worth it.

Apparently not all agree it's "worth it" if they don't want to freely do it or maybe their customers do not feel the extra costs and increased rates are worth it.

[paulxu]

Neat, the Preamble which establishes no law or confers any rights. So basically, it's a nice introduction that carries 0 legal weight and does not create a contract.

No, it's the social compact part that does establish the Constitution which is in fact the law of the land, and actually carries a lot of weight.
When "we the people" "ordain and establish" that's the contractual part. We are making a pact with each other. ("to ourselves")


Somehow if you graduated from Xavier I'm sure you know this and are just having a little fun.

[XU 87]

No, it's the social compact part that does establish the Constitution which is in fact the law of the land, and actually carries a lot of weight.
When "we the people" "ordain and establish" that's the contractual part. We are making a pact with each other. ("to ourselves")


Somehow if you graduated from Xavier I'm sure you know this and are just having a little fun.

If that's how we should read the Preamble, then I demand the govt provide all of us with free beer on the weekends. That would promote the general welfare.

[paulxu]

Good idea. BJ would be all in favor I'm sure. If the govnt was picking up the tab, he wouldn't worry about kids bolting the bill.
He may have to worry about collecting from the govnt...but that's another issue altogether.

[Smails]

Haha be a little more dramatic. You can't.

Interesting you find his response to CHIX's rant to be dramatic, but make no mention of the rant itself where he states that conservatives hate jesus, the planet, minorities and education. Let me guess...that's just passion, not drama.

Ideologues are ruining decent discourse and debate in this country.

[NY44]

Interesting you find his response to CHIX's rant to be dramatic, but make no mention of the rant itself where he states that conservatives hate jesus, the planet, minorities and education. Let me guess...that's just passion, not drama.

Ideologues are ruining decent discourse and debate in this country.

It's quite the leap to assume you know my opinion of one rant because of my response to another.

Chi's rant was over the top. However, I can't blame him for trying to appeal to the conflicts between Christianity's teachings and Conservative stances. Him of all people have tried to argue using mountains of reasoning and scientific evidence only to be chased around with pure nonsense.

[ChicagoX]

Interesting you find his response to CHIX's rant to be dramatic, but make no mention of the rant itself where he states that conservatives hate jesus, the planet, minorities and education. Let me guess...that's just passion, not drama.

Ideologues are ruining decent discourse and debate in this country.

I don't believe that conservatives "hate" Jesus, the planet, minorities, or education, and no where in my post did I write that. Talk about putting words in my mouth that were never there. I was once a conservative myself and grew up in a very conservative small town, so I understand that the problem isn't hatred.

I simply believe that the elected representatives of the GOP do not represent the teachings of Christ very well, yet they claim to be the religious party of this country by simply hiding behind restricting abortion, banning gay marriage, and ridiculous "religious freedom" laws that do nothing but attempt to legalize discrimination. I find the party be very hypocritical, particularly when their platform on the most important issues of our time is the antithesis of Christ's teachings when it comes to caring for the poor, being responsible stewards of the planet, healing the sick, welcoming minorities and immigrants, investing in education, and the wars that we involve ourselves in, and even Pope Francis has been pointing this out.

[xeus]

I simply believe that the elected representatives of the GOP do not represent the teachings of Christ very well

Do you think that the elected representatives of the Democratic party represent the teachings of Christ?

And please stop with the Pope Francis card. Conservative Catholics as well as more liberal Catholics love this Pope, and no one is nervous about his message. But your boy Obama sure is playing that angle a lot. Talk about hypocritical!

[XU 87]

I simply believe that the elected representatives of the GOP do not represent the teachings of Christ very well,

The facts would disagree with you. You liberals need to stop being so selfish and you need to stop relying on us conservatives helping people.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

[Smails]

It's quite the leap to assume you know my opinion of one rant because of my response to another.

Chi's rant was over the top. However, I can't blame him for trying to appeal to the conflicts between Christianity's teachings and Conservative stances. Him of all people have tried to argue using mountains of reasoning and scientific evidence only to be chased around with pure nonsense.

Well....I never said I assumed to know your opinion, hence the 'let me guess' part. Obviously I guessed wrong given your statement about his rant being over the top. Thanks for the clarification.

[ChicagoX]

The facts would disagree with you. You liberals need to stop being so selfish and you need to stop relying on us conservatives helping people.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

This article refutes your article: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331

From the article:

"One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)"

[Strange Brew]

The facts would disagree with you. You liberals need to stop being so selfish and you need to stop relying on us conservatives helping people.

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

Stop it 87, we all know liberals are the most charitable group in history...with other people's money.

Just like we know Jesus' message was all about using gov't authority to force others to do what is right.

[XU 87]

This article refutes your article: http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/31/business/la-fi-mh-conservatives-or-liberals-20140331

From the article:

"One problem noted across the political spectrum was Brooks' reliance on the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to distinguish "liberal" from "conservative." The problem was that the survey didn't seem to accurately measure those categories and didn't distinguish well between social conservatives or liberals and fiscal conservatives or liberals.

What the MIT researchers did find, however, was that conservatives give more to religious organizations, such as their own churches, and liberals more to secular recipients. Conservatives may give more overall, MIT says, but that's because they tend to be richer, so they have more money to give and get a larger tax benefit from giving it. (One of the things that makes social scientists skeptical of the benchmark survey Brooks used, in fact, is that it somehow concluded that liberals are richer than conservatives.)"

Since you liberals are so Christ like, as you proclaim, shouldn't your article in support of your position show that liberals give way more to charity than conservatives?

And your article even says "Conservatives give more" but then has to try to explain that fact away with "but that's because they make more." I doubt that second part is true.

[ChicagoX]

Since you liberals are so Christ like, as you proclaim, shouldn't your article in support of your position show that liberals give way more to charity than conservatives?

My issue isn't who gives more or less to charity. You were the one who brought that up. My issue is the GOP hiding behind divisive social issues and then proclaiming to be the religious party when, in fact, the actual party platform is the antithesis of what Christ actually taught in the New Testament. That's great that conservatives are so generous when it comes to donating to charity. If only their elected reps could enact laws that are reflective of the actual teachings of the Church, perhaps we wouldn't have such bad inequality problems in this country today.

[Smails]

I don't believe that conservatives "hate" Jesus, the planet, minorities, or education, and no where in my post did I write that. Talk about putting words in my mouth that were never there. I was once a conservative myself and grew up in a very conservative small town, so I understand that the problem isn't hatred.

I simply believe that the elected representatives of the GOP do not represent the teachings of Christ very well, yet they claim to be the religious party of this country by simply hiding behind restricting abortion, banning gay marriage, and ridiculous "religious freedom" laws that do nothing but attempt to legalize discrimination. I find the party be very hypocritical, particularly when their platform on the most important issues of our time is the antithesis of Christ's teachings when it comes to caring for the poor, being responsible stewards of the planet, healing the sick, welcoming minorities and immigrants, investing in education, and the wars that we involve ourselves in, and even Pope Francis has been pointing this out.


You need to back and read your original post: You said nothing about elected GOP officials, you simply used the term conservatives.

Case study: I am a conservative catholic, yet I recycle like a mad man, had geothermal heat put in my house 3 years ago, compost everything I can, have a garden in my backyard, drive a 4 cylinder cark, power my external lights with solar panels and ride my bike to work a couple days a week. Yet, I don't think the US Govt. should be forwarding legislation based on global warming theories. Am I a bad steward of the planet?

I also support: Legalizing weed, gay marriage, a path to citizenship and getting the hell out of the middle east. Maybe you grew up in some podunk, bootlick town where all of the people thought the poor were lazy, all Mexicans should be deported, and that clean air and water don't matter. I hate to break it to you....that's not the platform conservatives support. It's a false narrative that you and other far leftists put out there to help you sleep at night.

All you're doing is broad brushing and marginalizing people who think there are different approaches to solving the issues you mention above.

[XU 87]

My issue isn't who gives more or less to charity. You were the one who brought that up. My issue is the GOP hiding behind divisive social issues and then proclaiming to be the religious party when, in fact, the actual party platform is the antithesis of what Christ actually taught in the New Testament. That's great that conservatives are so generous when it comes to donating to charity. If only their elected reps could enact laws that are reflective of the actual teachings of the Church, perhaps we wouldn't have such bad inequality problems in this country today.

Where did Christ teach that the state should forcibly take people's money and redistribute it?

Liberals like to use others' money to help the poor. Conservatives like to use their own money.

There's no standard like a double standard.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

[XU 87]

All you're doing is broad brushing and marginalizing people who think there are different approaches to solving the issues you mention above.

And we have a winner!

[X-man]

Apparently not all agree it's "worth it" if they don't want to freely do it or maybe their customers do not feel the extra costs and increased rates are worth it.

You obviously don't read very well. You completely missed the point. I hope you are not a Xavier grad.

[ChicagoX]

I also support: Legalizing weed, gay marriage, a path to citizenship and getting the hell out of the middle east.

Sadly, you would be called a RINO among the base of the party you support. They have no place in the party for moderates like you when it comes for running for major office, and that is one of the things that drove me away from the party.

[XU 87]

Never mind.

[GoMuskies]

Sadly, you would be called a RINO among the base of the party you support. They have no place in the party for moderates like you when it comes for running for major office, and that is one of the things that drove me away from the party.

You would call the Kochs moderates? That's refreshing to hear.

[ChicagoX]

Where did Christ teach that the state should forcibly take people's money and redistribute it?

Liberals like to use others' money to help the poor. Conservatives like to use their own money.

There's no standard like a double standard.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

So raising any taxes at all is redistribution? I have to say, judging from the tax rates during the Eisenhower administration and the strength of the middle class during that timeframe, it seems to work well. Eisenhower would be called a socialist or communist nowadays, even though his tax and spending policies built one of the strongest middle classes in history. It was a hybrid mix of free market capitalism and socialist programs and policies that created and protected such a strong middle class post-WWII. People are so scared of the word socialism, but they seem to like their social security and Medicare benefits.

Do you consider all taxes redistribution? How else do we fund education, infrastructure, and research and development? The main reason why our roads and bridges are crumbling and not being replaced is because the funds aren't there due to effective tax rates on major corporations and the wealthiest Americans are the lowest they've been since the 1920s. The same goes for the education going downhill and why we've seen such major cuts in research and development. It's not like all of your taxes are just being "redistributed" to poor people. They are used for services necessary to keep this country running that most people utilize.

By your logic, all taxes should be abolished because they are redistribution. You much be a Bircher.

And Pope Francis would disagree with your economic platform.

[ChicagoX]

You would call the Kochs moderates? That's refreshing to hear.

On a couple of issues such as criminal justice, yes, but they are Birchers who are essentially supporting this country turning towards feudalism, which is already happening.

[GoMuskies]

On a couple of issues such as criminal justice, yes,

If you decided Smails was a moderate based just on his post, then you also think the Kochs are moderates. Because they share all those views.

[XU 87]

And Pope Francis would disagree with your economic platform.

I don't know about that. I do know he would disagree with your platform on abortion and gay marriage.

I also know that he would agree with our platform that people should help others.

[ChicagoX]

I don't know about that.

“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,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra*lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”

~Pope Francis

[XU 87]

“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,” Francis wrote in the papal statement. “This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacra*lized workings of the prevailing economic system.”

“Meanwhile,” he added, “the excluded are still waiting.”

~Pope Francis

Mr. Double Standard, since you feel it so necessary to supplement your arguments by quoting the Pope, how does he feel about the democratic platform on abortion, gay marriage, and contraception?

Do you think the Pope would have been for or against the Hobby Lobby decision?

Do you think the Pope would be for or against employers having to pay for insurance coverage that has mandatory birth control for employees?

Or do you just pick and choose as it suits your purpose?

[xeus]

My issue is the GOP hiding behind divisive social issues and then proclaiming to be the religious party when, in fact, the actual party platform is the antithesis of what Christ actually taught in the New Testament.

How is the GOP "hiding behind" these issues? How have they "proclaimed to be the religious party"?

You are an angst-ridden confused young man who needs to spend some time with the poor, and in prayer. Your divisive approach only hurts the environment and the poor. WWJD if he were posting on this message board? Sadly, we banned Jesus Christ a few years ago, but just pretend...

[ChicagoX]

You are an angst-ridden confused young man

Good to see you know me so well considering you've never even met me. Nothing like name-calling when someone happens to disagree with you.

[ChicagoX]

Mr. Double Standard, since you feel it so necessary to supplement your arguments by quoting the Pope, how does he feel about the democratic platform on abortion, gay marriage, and contraception?

That was actually my original point. When it comes to actual teachings of the New Testament, GOP politicians tend to ignore what Jesus actually said and focus solely on abortion, gay marriage and contraception. You're only proving my point by bringing up these issues.

For the record, the Pope made it very clear that church stances on abortion and gay marriage are very clear, but the church has become "obsessed" with those issues to the detriment of its larger mission to be "home for all." Yes, Democrats are on the wrong side of the church with these issues, but I believe the other issues we've previously discussed affect far more people than social issues such as these.

As George Carlin once said about conservatives: "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-school, you're fucked."

[OH.X.MI]

This is such a ridiculous argument. You cannot pigeonhole the teachings of the Church into American political ideologies. Republicans and Democrats both incorporate Church doctrine, or just Christian doctrine, into their platforms to sway voters one way or another. Neither side truly gives a damn about the teachings of Christ.

Like everything else in life, it's about compromise. I consider myself a devout Catholic, but unfortunately that doesn't always conform the political and economic realities we all live in. To say otherwise is naive.

[XU 87]

That was actually my original point. When it comes to actual teachings of the New Testament, GOP politicians tend to ignore what Jesus actually said and focus solely on abortion, gay marriage and contraception. You're only proving my point by bringing up these issues.

For the record, the Pope made it very clear that church stances on abortion and gay marriage are very clear, but the church has become "obsessed" with those issues to the detriment of its larger mission to be "home for all." Yes, Democrats are on the wrong side of the church with these issues, but I believe the other issues we've previously discussed affect far more people than social issues such as these.

As George Carlin once said about conservatives: "If you're pre-born, you're fine, if you're pre-school, you're fucked."

There's no standard like a double standard.

[OH.X.MI]

That was actually my original point. When it comes to actual teachings of the New Testament, GOP politicians tend to ignore what Jesus actually said and focus solely on abortion, gay marriage and contraception. You're only proving my point by bringing up these issues.

That just is not true. Sorry man, you are losing ground here. Anyone can disagree with the Churches stance on these issues, I do. But you can't just make stuff up.

[GoMuskies]

Catholics are pretty evenly split between Elephants and Asses, given that some of the Church's doctrine tends to be embodied by the Elephants' platform, and some of the Church's doctrine gets covered by the Asses. Fighting among Catholics as to which political party they should be a part of to be "most Catholic" is likely to be even more pointless than most political discussions.

[xeus]

Good to see you know me so well considering you've never even met me. Nothing like name-calling when someone happens to disagree with you.

Sorry we haven't been able to meet for dinner so that we can really get to know each other. I was just commenting based on your post, which, by most accounts, was quite angst-ridden. And as far as "name calling" goes, um, you started it dude. Again with the double standards...

[ChicagoX]

Sorry we haven't been able to meet for dinner so that we can really get to know each other. I was just commenting based on your post, which, by most accounts, was quite angst-ridden. And as far as "name calling" goes, um, you started it dude. Again with the double standards...

So glad that you've determined that I'm so full of angst simply by having a political disagreement. I've actually been looking for a psychological diagnosis from a stranger on the Internet for quite some time, so I'm glad you could provide that for me. After all these years, who would have thought that my political opinions have been formed by "a feeling of deep anxiety or dread, typically an unfocused one about the human condition or the state of the world in general"? I'm sure if I just start believing that supply-side economics works and climate change is a hoax, then all of that anxiety will just go away. :ok:

[xeus]

OK, straw poll...
Was ChicagoX's post angst-ridden?
a) Yes
b) No
c) BYU

Please vote only once.

[ChicagoX]

OK, straw poll...
Was ChicagoX's post angst-ridden?
a) Yes
b) No
c) BYU

Please vote only once.

You forgot choice D: Ron Everhart

[XU 87]

I'm sure if I just start believing that supply-side economics works and climate change is a hoax, then all of that anxiety will just go away.

Yes, your problems will be solved!!!!!

Come over to the light side, brother.

(I have worked all day and I'm still at work. Why are my billables so low for today? Oh.........)

[XU 87]

You forgot choice D: Ron Everhart

I tried but couldn't rep you for this one.

[94GRAD]

Global cooling has returned to Cincinnati. The high today is only 58 degrees!

[X-band '01]

No more "all over" the idea than the Climate Change protagonists were when the lakes in the Southeast- especially Georgia- we're at record lows and the constant reason cited was "global warming" ....all....the....time. ALARM....ALARM!!!!! Well, look at those lakes and water supply now. No problems and no more talk about Georgia diverting water from Alabama or Florida.

Can't have it both ways.

Sounds like Texas and Oklahoma are now starting to jump into the same boat - just a couple of years ago both states had a large portion of their states encompassed in extreme (d3) and in some cases exceptional (d4) drought. As of this week, only about 5-10% of those states are encompassed in severe (d2) drought. They're in a cycle where they've had heavy rains in the past couple of weeks.

US Drought Monitor (http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/)

There is still extreme and exceptional drought in the West (notably California), but the question now is when the drought cycle is expected to subside.

[Masterofreality]

Posted without comment....because it speaks for itself.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/05/19/updated-nasa-data-polar-ice-not-receding-after-all/

"Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede."

[PM Thor]

Sorry MOR, but this rebuttal disproves your link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/

[Masterofreality]

Sorry MOR, but this rebuttal disproves your link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/05/27/climate-skeptics-think-you-shouldnt-worry-about-melting-polar-ice-heres-why-theyre-wrong/

Sorry, Thor. it doesn't "disprove" anything, just "disputes" it.
Wow, what a surprise. A conservative leaning publication says one thing and then liberal leaning publications like the Slate, which is second only to The New Yorker in preference by Liberals to read, rush to dispute it.

Lake Erie right now is 62 degrees, which is approximately 5-6 degrees cooler than usual for this date. I repeat, where is this insipid warming? How many more years, errr decades, errrr Milleniums, errr eons must I wait?

Unfortuantely for the Imperial President, the debate is not over, nor should it be...and go talk to those irresponsible, coal burning Chinese rather than criminalizing and penalizing America.

[X-man]

Sorry, Thor. it doesn't "disprove" anything, just "disputes" it.
Wow, what a surprise. A conservative leaning publication says one thing and then liberal leaning publications like the Slate, which is second only to The New Yorker in preference by Liberals to read, rush to dispute it.

Lake Erie right now is 62 degrees, which is approximately 5-6 degrees cooler than usual for this date. I repeat, where is this insipid warming? How many more years, errr decades, errrr Milleniums, errr eons must I wait?

Unfortuantely for the Imperial President, the debate is not over, nor should it be...and go talk to those irresponsible, coal burning Chinese rather than criminalizing and penalizing America.
I have some questions for you, MOR. First, are you willing to agree that the distinction between the ocean ice and land ice might be important when it comes to potential problems with sea level changes? Second, are you willing to admit that the observed increasing sea ice and decreasing land ice in the poles might be consistent with global warming? I ask these two questions because it appears that these distinctions are fact-based and therefore likely agreed upon by the authors in both cited sources.

Third, can you at least consider the possibility that temperatures in the Midwest might not be representative of global temperatures? And finally, if that possibility exists, why do you continue to treat temperatures in and around Cleveland as evidence that the earth is not warming? It seems impossible to have a serious conversation with you on this subject when you keep throwing up obvious red herrings into the discussion.

[Snipe]

I have some questions for you, MOR. First, are you willing to agree that the distinction between the ocean ice and land ice might be important when it comes to potential problems with sea level changes? Second, are you willing to admit that the observed increasing sea ice and decreasing land ice in the poles might be consistent with global warming? I ask these two questions because it appears that these distinctions are fact-based and therefore likely agreed upon by the authors in both cited sources.

Third, can you at least consider the possibility that temperatures in the Midwest might not be representative of global temperatures? And finally, if that possibility exists, why do you continue to treat temperatures in and around Cleveland as evidence that the earth is not warming? It seems impossible to have a serious conversation with you on this subject when you keep throwing up obvious red herrings into the discussion.

When I read the article that he linked, I don't have those questions at all. Science should not be political, but it is. I have my sources that say total polar ice has actually been increasing (decreasing at the North Pole, while increasing in Antarctica). His article says that by Satellite images nothing has really happened at the North Pole either, and that in 1979 it was the end of a cold period so our first initial baseline should be put into perspective. And in the 1970s people did talk about the coming "Ice Age". Does Antarctica have more ice now than 20 years ago? I think it does.

But how silly is that? I think Antarctica has more ice, and we can have some sort of a go at it in a conversation. We are talking about taking the temperature for the whole world, and I shouldn't have to remind you, billions of dollars of research funding are at stake.

Scientifically, I think we are still in an "Ice Age (http://takimag.com/article/nye_lied_i_sighed_john_derbyshire/print#ixzz3bmZRl61W)".


Consider ice ages for example, like the one we are currently living through.

Ice ages last for tens of millions of years. We don’t know how many there have been. Our planet is 4½ billion years old; we only have clear evidence of ice ages for the last billion years, in which time there have been four ice ages, covering a total of one-third of a billion years. In its “normal” condition—the other two-thirds—the Earth is ice-free all the way up to the poles.

The present ice age started around 2½ million years ago. Our best guess is that it’ll continue for several million years more.

Within this ice age there have been ups and downs. The downs are called “glaciations,” the ups—comparatively warm spells, like the one we are currently in—are “interglacials.”

(When people say “ice age” they are generally referring to the last glaciation, which peaked around 20,000 B.C. and ended about 10,000 B.C. Hearing “ice age” thus misused when the speaker means “glaciation” is so common it’s not worth correcting, like hearing concert music called “classical music.” It does, though, tell you that the speaker’s grip on climatology is less than firm.)

The climatic changes here are sensational. At the peak of the last glaciation in 20,000 B.C., the pleasant suburb where I am writing this was buried under an ice sheet several hundred feet thick. It is possible that during one of the earlier ice ages, 700 million years ago, the entire planet was covered with ice, down to the equator.

Parts of Ohio, especially the northern parts and the Great Lakes were under an ice pack over a mile thick. In some parts it was up to two miles thick. The ice was so thick that the sheer weight bearing down upon the region compressed the earth so much that it is still "rebounding" today. Think about that. They only found this out once they had the global positioning satellite that could measure the rise of the earth, but the earth around the Great Lakes is rising a little bit every year. It is still bouncing back from the last "Ice Age", or glaciation. It is amazing science just to know that.

I believe in Global Warming. Glaciers covered most if not all of Ohio 10,000 years ago. I have it on very good authority that the Earth has been warming for 10,000 years. And we don't really want it to stop warming, because the next coming Glaciation is going to be a bitch. If you think Oil is bad, think about Ohio covered with ice.

I am hoping that global warming makes Ohio more like the climate of North Carolina. That way I won't have to retire somewhere else, I can just stay pat. I hope your side isn't just lying, because I really want a warmer world. What we should be concerned about is another glaciation, because that would be a horrible end to millions of lives.

Imagine if the glaciation was starting today and quickly moving forth. What would be the solution? Would liberals suddenly tell people that we need to pump more oil and burn more coal? I doubt that.

[Snipe]

And I should note that people predicted that the North Pole was going to be ice free by 2013.

Looks like that didn't happen. Looks like their is still plenty of ice. Polar Bears by the way are living in record numbers. Some have even been invading into Grizzly turf and even mating with them.

[Strange Brew]

No, it's the social compact part that does establish the Constitution which is in fact the law of the land, and actually carries a lot of weight.
When "we the people" "ordain and establish" that's the contractual part. We are making a pact with each other. ("to ourselves")


Somehow if you graduated from Xavier I'm sure you know this and are just having a little fun.

I have two degrees from X.

What you wrote in regard to the preamble of the Constitution is wrong.

[Snipe]

And to weigh in on the ChicagoX subject, for sure I would vote angst-ridden. He is talking about how Republican politicans don't really act in the name of Jesus Christ. I used to post under the name of Jesus Christ, so it is a topic dear to my heart.

ChicagoX also called me a racist and a bigot on this very thread, which is a Global Warming thread, so I should have expected that. If the climate is getting warmer, it must be because I am some insane bigot. I love the DISQUALIFY

DISQUALIFY

DISQUALIFY is a strategy commonly used on the left to shut down argument. If I pose an argument that someone doesn't want to answer, or may be difficult around the edges, then DISQUALIFY! You are a RACIST. What are you HITLER? Have you no sense of decency my friend, have you no sense of decency? Politics today is increasingly about the DISQUALIFY. Hey ChicagoX, when did you stop beating your wife?

WWJD?

Now I don't know Jesus very well to be honest. I am a fan on a personal level. ChicagoX wanted to know what would Jesus do about the climate? That is a great question. Maybe this is one answer:


We spend billions on global warming. Meanwhile millions of children go blind because of malnutrition. Clean water and a viable food supply is a luxury for most of the world's poor population, yet white liberals want to spend billions on "global warming". Really, fuck the poor! I love it. And while you bend them over you congratulate yourself on how "aware" you are.

The models didn't predict the flat line in global warming. The earth was supposed to be warmer compared to all the models that they sold us. It is cooler now than in 1998. We haven't had any warming for 18 years.

What is the opportunity cost of this?

The economic concept of opportunity cost is that the real cost of something is something else that you could have had instead. Say, instead of spending billions to combat the non-existent warming, we could have spent those billions educating poor black children.

...

When global warming doesn't happen, (and it hasn't been happening in the past 18 years (check your models)), somebody has some splaining to do. Except nobody will every have to apologize or explain anything, because liberals like you are morally right, even if the facts say that you are wrong.

Spending billions on global warming is the worst allocation of resources that I could ever imagine given the overall poverty of the majority of this planet.

And seriously, what happens when Global Warming doesn't happen and millions of children keep dying every year?

Where is the score card? Where is the scoreboard? How do we tally the deaths and human suffering? Will anyone keep track to see who wins and who loses?

There never will be a score card, so ChicagoX can keep on keeping on, and if Global Warming doesn't pan out and they actually ever admitted it wasn't the case, he would still be "right" because he "had good intentions" and his opponents were greedy, racist, bigoted and had bad intentions. Because like Jonathan Haidt showed, conservatives think liberals are good people with bad policies, but liberals think that conservatives are just bad people.

So millions of people, with a high percentage of children will continue to die while we allocate resources to Global Warming. Liberals don't have a good grasp on the economic concept of "opportunity cost". What we spend on Global Warming (which is hundreds of billions every year globally), cannot be spent on the vast array of social welfare programs and job creation.

Take any pet issue and do the math, see if those billions could help. I will take one, just for an example, there would be over 1.000 others I could also argue.

Take Social Security. Social Security is underfunded. It is going to be a big problem. It is also very popular. What if we had spent all of those billions all these years funding Social Security? Well we didn't, but we could have. That is one opportunity cost, and somebody has to pay the bill later now that we have kicked the can down the road. And interestingly enough, Barrack Hussein Obama is the first American President to actually cut the funding for Social Security. That actually has happened. I am not talking about Social Security spending, but Social Security FUNDING. It is funded by FICA taxes, and Barrack Hussein Obama cut that funding.

So instead of funding Social Security, we cut the funding for Social Security and increased the spending on Global Warming instead. I am thinking that down the road historians will not look upon that kindly. But ChicagoX won't be disturbed, because he had good intentions.

So what would Jesus do? It is a good question. Would Jesus want us to fund Social Security? Would Jesus want us to create jobs? Would Jesus want us to allocate our resources to save millions of children that die or go blind? Would Jesus put Global Warming above saving those children?

Opportunity costs involve trade offs. That is because we live in a world of scarce resources. Spending resources on one item means that you can't spend them on another. It is the nature of the beast. I put a poll up that talked about the relationship between massive third world unskilled immigration vs the black working class. After Baltimore, many liberals or progressives (I will use any term they like), argued that Baltimore was caused by the heightened inequality of wealth. But the policies of massive third world immigration (over 40 million so far, possibly well over 50 million) has an adverse impact on the American working class, and the Black working class especially. Does any liberal or progressive want to vote in that poll? I don't think they would want to. In their world, their plans have all +s and no -s, all benefits and no costs. Pros but not cons. Democrats want a higher minimum wage but all favor massive immigration that drives down wages. They want both black working class people to fare well, and immigrants to do so too. They have no sense of trade offs, and they refuse to acknowledge that someone that they "support" might be egregiously hurt by their policies. All that matters is good intentions.

The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions ~ Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

[paulxu]

I have two degrees from X.

What you wrote in regard to the preamble of the Constitution is wrong.

I thought you did. I'm curious though...what did I write in regard to the preamble of the Constitution is wrong?

[XU 87]

I thought you did. I'm curious though...what did I write in regard to the preamble of the Constitution is wrong?

When you said the preamble carries a lot of weight. It doesn't. It's legally insignificant.

[94GRAD]

Global cooling is back in Cincinnati today, High of 64 Low of 51.

[xeus]

Global cooling is back in Cincinnati today, High of 64 Low of 51.

The polar bear in my backyard, whose ice floe has apparently melted, does NOT think this is funny.

[94GRAD]

The polar bear in my backyard, whose ice floe has apparently melted, does NOT think this is funny.

Luck for you, the City recently lifted the ban on polar bears as pets.

[xeus]

Luck for you, the City recently lifted the ban on polar bears as pets.

It's really all about how you raise them.

[X-man]

When I read the article that he linked, I don't have those questions at all. Science should not be political, but it is.


Try reading the other article (linked by Thor), and you might understand my point.

[XU 87]

If we don't get some global warming in Cincinnati, and soon, I'm moving south. They just cancelled my kids' swim team practice because the pool is too cold due to all the recent cold weather.

[X-man]

If we don't get some global warming in Cincinnati, and soon, I'm moving south. They just cancelled my kids' swim team practice because the pool is too cold due to all the recent cold weather.

Just don't buy in Florida or the Norfolk area. That land is likely to be under water soon enough to mean you won't be able to sell.

[paulxu]

When you said the preamble carries a lot of weight. It doesn't. It's legally insignificant.

Well, I'll just let you split that hair and be happy I guess.
When it says "we" "ordain and establish" and then representatives of each state's people sign the document...I think it's significant.
I think it signifies a contract (social in nature) of the states agreeing as one to be bound by the words in the document.
But maybe not.

[XU 87]

I am sad to report that global cooling/second coming of ice age has now struck Illinois. I am in Chicago at Reds-Cubs game and it's 52 degrees. People are wearing winter coats. In the middle of June.

[NY44]

Winter is coming.

[muskienick]

I am sad to report that global cooling/second coming of ice age has now struck Illinois. I am in Chicago at Reds-Cubs game and it's 52 degrees. People are wearing winter coats. In the middle of June.

While you were there. it was 90+ degrees here in Cincy, just 300 miles away (not that it makes a hill of beans worth of difference as far as global warming/cooling is concerned).

[94GRAD]

I am sad to report that global cooling/second coming of ice age has now struck Illinois. I am in Chicago at Reds-Cubs game and it's 52 degrees. People are wearing winter coats. In the middle of June.

Definitely Global Warming in Cincy yesterday and the next couple of days, I'm sweating my nards off walking around outside.

[XU 87]

The global cooling in Chicago is causing warming in Cincinnati.

[X-man]

The global cooling in Chicago is causing warming in Cincinnati.

How precious.

[XU 87]

Cold again in Chicago. I'm concerned about a glacier coming through Wrigley in a few years.

[XU 87]

More evidence of global cooling? The Chicago cooling is causing Cincinnati to be so hot this weekend. As we know though, Cincinnati is generally cooling. Three days of higher temperatures does not mean that, overall, Cincinnati is going through a cooling phase. Let's just hope this cooling phase isn't too long or too severe.

P.S. I wish our Chicago posters would have warned me about the cooling in Chicago. I should have worn my winter coat to yesterday's game.

[xu82]

P.S.i wish our Chicago posters would have warned me about the cooling in Chicago. I should have warn my winter coat to yesterday's game.

We were in Vegas a few weeks ago. Not summer yet, so nice weather. Took a helicopter trip into Grand Canyon. Temps dropped 25 degrees in one spot and I was forced to buy my souvenir sweatshirt. Seriously doubt I'll ever wear that ugly but warm thing again. That's how the reservation stays afloat, I guess.

[Strange Brew]

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2015/06/12/flashback-abcs-08-prediction-nyc-under-water-climate-change-june

Gee, I guess the Big East will have to find an new place to play the tourney since MSG is under water. Oh wait.....

[bjf123]

Go back and look and the predictions in the early to mid 70s. At that time, the scientists were convinced there was a coming ice age and we'd all be dead due by now food since our farmland would be under massive amounts of snow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GoMuskies]

Go back and look and the predictions in the early to mid 70s. At that time, the scientists were convinced there was a coming ice age and we'd all be dead due by now food since our farmland would be under massive amounts of snow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, we burned the shit out of some fossil fuels and fixed the hell out of that problem, didn't we!

[Lloyd Braun]

I don't know about that. I do know he would disagree with your platform on abortion and gay marriage.

I also know that he would agree with our platform that people should help others.

Papal Warming (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/14/climate-pope-scientists-encyclical-paris-negotiations-environment/71056004/)

This affects economics as well. Regardless of which ridiculous political party the Pope would align with economically, it's pretty clear on this issue that the Pope believes in climate change.

[XU 87]

Papal Warming (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/06/14/climate-pope-scientists-encyclical-paris-negotiations-environment/71056004/)

This affects economics as well. Regardless of which ridiculous political party the Pope would align with economically, it's pretty clear on this issue that the Pope believes in climate change.

I think the Pope has made a huge mistake in taking an official stance on what is really a political issue. I wonder what the Pope's stance will be on regulations of coal mines in the U.S. What about cap and trade?

[Lloyd Braun]

I think the Pope has made a huge mistake in taking an official stance on what is really a political issue.

Like abortion? Like capital punishment? I don't think the Pope believes it to be a political issue, though I may be mistaken.

[XU 87]

Like abortion? Like capital punishment? I don't think the Pope believes it to be a political issue, though I may be mistaken.

I am waiting for the Pope's stance on U.S. corporate taxes. Should they be higher or lower?

P.S. There is no real dispute as to what takes place when an abortion or execution occurs. There is a dispute as to whether global warming exists, and whether any such warming is caused by humans.

[Lloyd Braun]

I am waiting for the Pope's stance on U.S. corporate taxes. Should they be higher or lower?

P.S. There is no dispute as to what takes place when an abortion or execution occurs. There is a dispute as to whether global warming exists, and whether any such warming is caused by humans.


If you've ever had a "when does life begin?" discussion then it is indeed disputable. If he believes it to be a moral responsibility to take care of the environment then getting involved is his duty as Pope to give Catholics direction. Are US corporate taxes directly affecting one of our moral duties? If there is data to show that corporate taxes are the major factor in affecting the poor then he may have a stance on that too.

[XU 87]

If you've ever had a "when does life begin?" discussion then it is indeed disputable. If he believes it to be a moral responsibility to take care of the environment then getting involved is his duty as Pope to give Catholics direction. Are US corporate taxes directly affecting one of our moral duties? If there is data to show that corporate taxes are the major factor in affecting the poor then he may have a stance on that too.

Super. What's his stance on capital gains tax? Too high or too low?

Maybe he should start endorsing candidates.

He's gone down a path that he never should have gone down.

P.S. I am sure that there is some data out there from some liberal think tank which says corporate taxes should be higher so more money can given to the poor. The data may and probably is all wrong, but I guess the Pope should still offer his official stance since there "is data out there".

[DC Muskie]

He's gone down a path that he never should have gone down.

What do you mean by this? You sound like he's going to face some sort of consequence. If you are a member of the Church, are you going to leave because of this teaching?

It should be pretty easy to ignore him. Or at the very least, disagree with him.

[SemajParlor]

Like abortion? Like capital punishment? I don't think the Pope believes it to be a political issue, though I may be mistaken.

Not sure if many people still believe it to be a political issue.

[XU 87]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical-draft-leak-20150615

I can't wait to for this week's homily discussing the use of fossil fuels and alternative energy.

Next week's sermon will be about the need for more SEC regulations and strengthening the Dodd-Frank Act.

[DC Muskie]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/pope-francis-climate-change-encyclical-draft-leak-20150615

I can't wait to for this week's homily discussing the use of fossil fuels and alternative energy.

Next week's sermon will be about the need for more SEC regulations and strengthening the Dodd-Frank Act.

Followed by your head exploding!

[XU 87]

Followed by your head exploding!

I will be leading a mass exodus from church while holding my Ronald Reagan sign.

[DC Muskie]

I will be leading a mass exodus from church while holding my Ronald Reagan sign.

I'm picturing this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4MQGwdM2MY

[paulxu]

Maybe you should find somebody else besides Reagan to put on the sign.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

[94GRAD]

Global warming doesn't have anything on extinction!

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/scientists-build-case-sixth-extinction-say-it-could-kill-us-n378586

[Strange Brew]

Global warming doesn't have anything on extinction!

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/scientists-build-case-sixth-extinction-say-it-could-kill-us-n378586

Fear not 94, the gov't will fix it.

[XU 87]

Boy it's cold in Cncinnati today. This global cooling is really starting to concern me.

[xu82]

Boy it's cold in Cncinnati today. This global cooling is really starting to concern me.

Have a hot toddy and forget all your fears.

[muskienick]

I assume that it will be 60 degrees below zero tomorrow here on Hamilton Avenue in NCH due to the global cooling trend being discussed on this thread. That, or maybe you right wing whackos will finally grow up and realize that life practices have to change just a bit to keep our planet functioning in a manner that will extend our existence for a few years moire.

[94GRAD]

I assume that it will be 60 degrees below zero tomorrow here on Hamilton Avenue in NCH due to the global cooling trend being discussed on this thread. That, or maybe you right wing whackos will finally grow up and realize that life practices have to change just a bit to keep our planet functioning in a manner that will extend our existence for a few years moire.

I assume the planet will quit functioning, after doing so for 14 billion years, just after I die so I'm good

[Snipe]

I assume that it will be 60 degrees below zero tomorrow here on Hamilton Avenue in NCH due to the global cooling trend being discussed on this thread. That, or maybe you right wing whackos will finally grow up and realize that life practices have to change just a bit to keep our planet functioning in a manner that will extend our existence for a few years moire.

Nick, we are currently in an Ice Age, that was what I was taught in Catholic School. This Ice Age has lasted for millions of years. I am not kidding. I am totally serious. You can look it up.

Many people think that the last Ice Age was 10,000 or so years ago, but those people are pikers. 10,000 years ago was just the last extent when the ice reached the furthest until it began retreating. We are now in a period called an interglacial. That is when the ice retreats for awhile before it extends again. We are still living in an Ice Age, which has lasted for millions of years. Every human that has ever lived has lived in an Ice Age. Humans have only been around for one or two hundred thousand years. Ice Ages were here before us, and I predict they will be here long after we are gone.

Manhattan was under a sheet of ice taller than the highest skyscraper, and it wasn't even close during the last extent. Think of Ohio. Think about miles thick layers of ice, largest around the Great Lakes region. Get this, the ice was so think around the Great Lakes that the earth is still rebounding from the weight of the ice compressing the crust. And we have been warming for 10,000 years, yet every year the elevation of the Great Lakes gets higher. It isn't because of the shift of tectonic plates, it is because of the massive weight of the glaciers is no longer there. It is incredible Nick! It is SCIENCE!!!

I love Science.

I concede that the earth has been warming. In fact I have conclusive proof that the earth has been warming for 10,000 years! Why?

SCIENCE!

And for humans, I think 10,000 years of Global Warming has been a good thing. I think another 100 years of Global Warming would even be better. I don't see this warming of our globe as a threat to humanity, and it isn't even on our threat horizon. A warmer world is a better world for us. And this planted has been much warmer than now, and life thrived.

We spend a billion dollars a day globally on Global Warming. We could spend that money on real threats, like the millions of kids that go blind or die because of poor water and malnutrition, or the millions of kids that die from malaria, or the people that die because of air quality and improper venting of homes. Why? Science!

SCIENCE!

I could list the top 100 causes of death and disease for poor Black children across the world, but White people like you want to use the money to stop our planet's inter glacial to return us to a new Ice Age. Racist! As a Black woman who happens to be a lesbian, that offends me.

SCIENCE!

What I admire about you Nick is that you know that you are better than your political adversaries, who are foolish and naive. If only they would listen to your SCIENCE! The whole world would be better off if people like you were in charge, and they had to acknowledge and respect your SCIENCE!

[Masterofreality]

Yes,

Let's base opinions and billions of dollars of wasted resources on a few decades of measurements- actually in reality a couple of decades of flawed computer model predictions- rather than looking at the globe over thousands or millions of years. Then, let's take those flawed models and predict the most dire, catastrophic outcome.

Man's hubris over how much he thinks he controls- both negative and positive- is amazing.