Page 2 of 199 FirstFirst 12341252102 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 1987
  1. #11
    Sophomore WCWIII's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Naperville IL
    Posts
    964
    Here's the "best" set of temperature data that I know about ... Summarized here.

    The conclusion of the research (sponsored in part by the Koch foundation) is that there appears to be a human component in the warming trend of the last 50 yrs above a general warming trend over the last 250 yrs.

    It's true that warming trends much larger have been part of the natural earth's history but the recent data do allow for some conclusions to be made. Also, year to year variations can be much larger than any such trends.

    Now policy decisions are another matter - hopefully they are guided by science and not hype and hysteria.

  2. #12
    Supporting Member GoMuskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Wichita, KS
    Posts
    28,244
    Quote Originally Posted by WCWIII View Post
    (sponsored in part by the Koch foundation)
    This means that the research is high quality. We don't screw around with bad science.

  3. #13
    Supporting Member DC Muskie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The Beltway
    Posts
    11,237
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    Global warming is like cancer: if you ignore it, it just goes away.
    Which is pretty much my stance.
    Award Winning Poster Since 2015

  4. #14
    Supporting Member Emp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Royal Oak Michigan
    Posts
    3,090
    Just once a year? Promise?
    It's a still great day to be a Muskie, but a sad day to be a supporting member of this board.

  5. #15
    Good lord, I could really care less what scientists say. It just makes sense for humankind to stop crapping on the only planet we were given. We should limit green house gasses, stop littering, conserve energy, etc. If these things don't make sense to you then you are already lost.

  6. #16
    Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    1,599
    Quote Originally Posted by Masterofreality View Post
    But those types of storms are not unprecedented. Storms like that happened before, way before any talk of "climate change" or "warming".

    Just because a one off storm happens, doesn't mean it is a trend. What I said was correct. There were predictions of a certain amount of storms and those projections have been way too high. Hurricane Camille happened in 1969, and it was horriffic on the Gulf Coast. No one was talking about "warming" then. If anything there was a prediction by the alarmists that we were entering a new "Ice Age". I guess whatever sticks, huh?
    Actually the cost of the hurricanes is unprecedented. And the cost is due to hurricanes hitting areas that typically aren't hit (or hit with a storm of that strength) and are therefore unprepared. Is this man made, I don't know, but the damage is there:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...tic_hurricanes
    Last edited by RealDeal; 08-30-2013 at 11:09 AM.

  7. #17
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Anderson Twp
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by GoMuskies View Post
    This means that the research is high quality. We don't screw around with bad science.
    There was a good article in The Week covering this exact subject. The unavoidable fact is that the "model" that has been used for supporting the man made "greenhouse" via CO2 emissions theory is simply wrong. It has not accurately predicted the outcome of the variables supposedly at work, and may not include important variables that do have some influence.

    The undisputed facts are:

    1. That the decade of the 2000s showed a "plateau" of the previous warming "trends" of the 1980s and 1990s which even global warming advocates acknowledge.
    2. In this same decade, the world pumped 110 billion tons of CO2 into the air, which is calculated as 25% of the entire amount from the beginning of the industrial revolution to now. In other words, far more than ever before.
    3. The model that says the more CO2 in the air, the warmer the world gets, does not allow a "plateau" when more CO2 is pumped into the air at a faster rate than in the past. Therefore it is wrong.

    The article did mention some alternate "explanations" offered by global warming supporters, such as that the oceans are absorbing the "missing heat". Of course the oceans did not just appear in the last 10 years, and they are still made of whatever they were made of before, so if the models did not account for the oceans and their interaction with the supposed warming elements, they are still wrong, and the true lack of understanding of all the earth's forces and interaction is on public display.

    Another proposed explanation for up to 30% of the "missing heat" is that there are "sunlight blocking particles" being released into the air by coal-burning China and a few random volcanoes. If true, they are so myopic that they don't see the obvious "solution" to global warming - the elimination of pollution controls in the rest of the world! All we need to do then, is to go back to the days before the EPA and allow the factories to spew out as much stuff as they did from 1900 to 1970 or so. Of course China has been burning coal for decades and has been growing for decades, which should have short circuited warming much earlier. Volcanoes seem to be a part of nature, which cannot be accounted for in man made situations. Otherwise you would have to allow that the previous colder temperatures could have been the result of higher volcanic activity centuries ago, a fact which is documented both scientifically and in popular culture such as the European "year without a summer" in 1816. Maybe the "real" temperature is what we are seeing now, and the previous colder temps were the "un-natural" ones.

    If real scientists cannot stop politicians from taking advantage of medieval human paranoia that every storm, earthquake, or meteor that occurs is the result of global warming or human sin ( nowadays pretty much the same thing), we will miss the truth whatever it is, and feed the ignorance and greed of the masses until it's too late to take whatever necessary action is actually required.

  8. #18
    Sophomore ChicagoX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    887
    Quote Originally Posted by ArizonaXUGrad View Post
    Good lord, I could really care less what scientists say. It just makes sense for humankind to stop crapping on the only planet we were given. We should limit green house gasses, stop littering, conserve energy, etc. If these things don't make sense to you then you are already lost.
    This.

    People may disagree with the science, but does anyone disagree with the call to action to become more responsible stewards of the planet? Does anyone think that developing cleaner and more efficient energy, recycling and energy conservation are bad things? Wouldn't it be nice to no longer have to rely on Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia for oil when their social mindsets resemble something out of the Eighth Century? Shouldn't the U.S. be the worldwide leader in developing new technologies that are cleaner, more efficient and more technologically suited for the 21st century?

    There is so much good that could come out of becoming more responsible stewards of this planet, and unless you work for one of the energy companies who continue to make record profits, I fail to see why so many people could be against such a positive cause. Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?

  9. #19
    Supporting Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Anderson Twp
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by ChicagoX View Post
    This.

    People may disagree with the science, but does anyone disagree with the call to action to become more responsible stewards of the planet? Does anyone think that developing cleaner and more efficient energy, recycling and energy conservation are bad things? Wouldn't it be nice to no longer have to rely on Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia for oil when their social mindsets resemble something out of the Eighth Century? Shouldn't the U.S. be the worldwide leader in developing new technologies that are cleaner, more efficient and more technologically suited for the 21st century?

    There is so much good that could come out of becoming more responsible stewards of this planet, and unless you work for one of the energy companies who continue to make record profits, I fail to see why so many people could be against such a positive cause. Why is the status quo so acceptable to so many people when better, cleaner, more efficient and more responsible options are out there and just ripe for development?
    Yes, If the call to action was what you describe here, I think virtually everyone would agree and participate. BUT, this is not the call to action that the global warming crowd is making. They want carbon taxes, and penalties for producing carbon, and sham government supported initiatives like Solyndra, etc etc. all focused on CO2, which now does not look like it is actually a problem, scientifically. This results in diverting money and time and goodwill away from taking the steps necessary to achieve the desirable objectives you've listed.

    I agree with what you have stated here and the biggest thing standing in the way of taking the actions you've outlined, is the political sham of a blatantly false "science" thrust upon us which is aligned with politicians and special interest groups - NOT achieving the actual objectives. They destroy the credibility necessary to get mainstream people to believe, and more importantly act.

  10. #20
    Voice of Reason Masterofreality's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    On America's Great North Coast
    Posts
    18,413
    Quote Originally Posted by DC Muskie View Post
    I'm merely pointing out your theory that there has now been three years with alarmist being wrong about hurricanes is factually incorrect. You even admit it when describing "one off storm."

    I don't care about trends. All I'm saying the second costliest hurricane happened last year. And the same area was hit the year before.

    You can't be correct on both sides of the argument MOR.
    The fact that I cited is true when it comes to the number of named storms in the Atlantic. The number has been below the predictions.

    I'm not arguing both sides. A hurricane happens to hit the Northeast where prices are high as a kite. If the same "one off" hurricane happened to veer another way, there is no discussion. Do you not understand the concept of a one off....like a "one hundred year flood that happens every 100 years, "global warming" or not? BTW. Sandy was only a Category 3, not a 5. She just happened to come ashore at the wrong place. Camille was a Category 5....in 1969. It did 1/60th of the financial damage that Sandy did. Ever hear of inflation?

    Point being is that Category 3, 4, and 5 hurricanes can and have happened in any era- "warming" or not and still the evidence that man is causing any change is questionable.

    Anyway, go talk to China and leave us the hell alone.
    Last edited by Masterofreality; 08-30-2013 at 12:14 PM.
    "I Got CHAMPIONS in that Lockerroom!" -Stanley Burrell

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •