ADVERTISEMENT

According to the Purdue Weather twitter account

Re: I have no idea what he is saying either

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
My entire point with respect to my "I don't care about climate change," because I don't, is that it has been happening for eons. Yes, I agree that greenhouse gas emissions are part of what causes climate change, but climate change is inevitable. Thus, we are wasting time, money, and resources by trying to solve a problem that existed before we did.

"Moving goalposts." - Climate change is man made. That's the story pushed by politicians. Not "part of the problem." But now the fact that we're just part of the problem is accepted as fact? Where's that been reported in the main stream. No, if you listen to liberals, it's all about man made carbon emissions, and we have to do everything in our power to stop it. Not once has a politician said, "we need to reduce our carbon footprint in order to delay the inevitability of climate change."

So. Yeah. That's my last post in this thread about this pointless subject. I'm sorry that some board members have dedicated their entire careers to its study without solving this unsolvable problem. Excuse me, Purdue's on.
Pointless? I'm not sorry about such a ridiculous stance from a board member, but I am saddened by it. I had you pegged as a reasonable conservative, but I was wrong on this issue.
 
right

who cares if you cite, you know, actual science sources, heck why not just cite the Enquirer while you're at it. Comical.
 
sigh

1. we haven't been here for eons, so whether or not the temperature of the planet changed, or crops could or couldn't grow, or coastal areas were flooded didn't effing matter. Yes, it's happened forever, NO ONE has said differently. F politicians, look at the freaking science.

2. TODAY climate change is ACCELERATED VERY QUICKLY by manmade actions. Instead of a gradual change, it's much quicker, and, wait for it, there's actually humans around now, who might be, ya know, affected by it. Yes, the it HAS ALWAYS been accepted as fact that we are part of the problem. If you spent five minutes researching the issues instead of "IDGAF" blase whatever attitude, you'd be disabused of some misconceptions.

3. rapid changing of the global climate is not "pointless" unless you've decided consciously to avoid learning anything about it, which, you clearly have.
 
Re: Then explain.....

Good call 3 putt. Purdue and Iowa State just recently released a survey of scientists and farmers on man made global warming. Only 50% of scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming (if there is any) while only 8% of farmers hold this same belief.

How can this be "settled science" if there is a 50/50 split in scientific opinion?

And to whoever it was that started back pedaling on man's influence on weather - first of all it's nice to see you slowly but surely coming to your senses; but your buddy beazlebub isn't going to be able to throw around words like anthropogenic much longer if you and others on here continue to say these things.
 
Re: I have no idea what he is saying either


My entire point with respect to my "I don't care about climate change," because I don't, is that it has been happening for eons. Yes, I agree that greenhouse gas emissions are part of what causes climate change, but climate change is inevitable. Thus, we are wasting time, money, and resources by trying to solve a problem that existed before we did.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on GR. Explain away the 'coincidence' that man masterd fire around the same time the last ice age ended.
Man's excessive taste for Wooly Mammoth meet, roasted over a fossil fuel burning fire, directly contribured to the melting of the glaciers. Add the proof that he used fire, creating CO2 emissions, inside caves to stay warm-BAM global warming and the end of the ice age.
 
Re: I have no idea what he is saying either

Originally posted by BoilerJS:

My entire point with respect to my "I don't care about climate change," because I don't, is that it has been happening for eons. Yes, I agree that greenhouse gas emissions are part of what causes climate change, but climate change is inevitable. Thus, we are wasting time, money, and resources by trying to solve a problem that existed before we did.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Come on GR. Explain away the 'coincidence' that man masterd fire around the same time the last ice age ended.
Man's excessive taste for Wooly Mammoth meet, roasted over a fossil fuel burning fire, directly contribured to the melting of the glaciers. Add the proof that he used fire, creating CO2 emissions, inside caves to stay warm-BAM global warming and the end of the ice age.
Funniest thing I've seen on here in a while. Well done.
 
Re: Then explain.....

Originally posted by hunkgolden:
Good call 3 putt. Purdue and Iowa State just recently released a survey of scientists and farmers on man made global warming. Only 50% of scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming (if there is any) while only 8% of farmers hold this same belief.

How can this be "settled science" if there is a 50/50 split in scientific opinion?

And to whoever it was that started back pedaling on man's influence on weather - first of all it's nice to see you slowly but surely coming to your senses; but your buddy beazlebub isn't going to be able to throw around words like anthropogenic much longer if you and others on here continue to say these things.
Could you find a link to this "survey of scientists and farmers"? Why would farmers' opinion on whether or not climate change is influenced by man have value?

What I think about this issue will have little and less to do with what others are saying on this board. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that:
The earth is warmingThe dominant forcing behind that warming is CO2 from burning fossil fuelsThe rate of change is unprecedented in the paleoclimate record.
Does your ideology impact your view on other scientific facts? Evolution? Continental drift? Germ Theory? Are you an anti-vaxxer?
 
Found the link

Abstract:

Understanding U.S. agricultural stakeholder views about the existence of
climate change and its causes is central to developing interventions in
support of adaptation and mitigation. Results from surveys conducted
with six Midwestern stakeholder groups (corn producers, agricultural
advisors, climatologists, Extension educators, and two different
cross-disciplinary teams of scientists funded by USDA-NIFA) reveal
striking differences. Individuals representing these groups were asked
in 2011-2012 to "select the statement that best represents your beliefs
about climate change." Three of five answer options included the notion
that climate change is occurring but for different reasons (mostly human
activities; mostly natural; more or less equally by natural and human
activities). The last two options were "there is not sufficient evidence
to know with certainty whether climate change is occurring or not" and
"climate change is not occurring." Results reveal that agricultural and
climate scientists are more likely to believe that climate change is
mostly due to human activities (50 to 67%) than farmers and advisers
(8-12%). Almost a quarter of farmers and agricultural advisers believe
the source of climate change is mostly natural causes; and 22-31% state
there is not sufficient evidence to know with certainty whether it is
occurring or not. This discrepancy in beliefs creates challenges for
communicating climate science to agricultural stakeholders in ways that
encourage adaptation and mitigation. Results suggest that engagement
strategies that reduce threats to worldviews and increase public
dialogue could make climate information more relevant to stakeholder
groups with different belief structures.


http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2014/Q4/study-farmers-and-scientists-divided-over-climate-change.html
 
Re: sigh

Originally posted by qazplm:
1. we haven't been here for eons, so whether or not the temperature of the planet changed, or crops could or couldn't grow, or coastal areas were flooded didn't effing matter. Yes, it's happened forever, NO ONE has said differently. F politicians, look at the freaking science.

2. TODAY climate change is ACCELERATED VERY QUICKLY by manmade actions. Instead of a gradual change, it's much quicker, and, wait for it, there's actually humans around now, who might be, ya know, affected by it. Yes, the it HAS ALWAYS been accepted as fact that we are part of the problem. If you spent five minutes researching the issues instead of "IDGAF" blase whatever attitude, you'd be disabused of some misconceptions.

3. rapid changing of the global climate is not "pointless" unless you've decided consciously to avoid learning anything about it, which, you clearly have.
Forest fires occurred long before humans existed on this planet, therefore we shouldn't be concerned with the human impact on such events.
 
Re: I have no idea what he is saying either

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Pointless? I'm not sorry about such a ridiculous stance from a board member, but I am saddened by it. I had you pegged as a reasonable conservative, but I was wrong on this issue.
Ah yes, the old "if you don't agree with me, you're unreasonable."

I should qualify this: I do not care about climate change as a political issue. It is inevitable. It is not something that will be solved by politicians. It will be solved by scientists, who I suspect will tell us, "yeah, not much we can do."

That said, I'm not sure why any of you care that I don't care. I conserve water. I drive a relatively fuel efficient car. I recycle. I abide by the environmental laws of one of the most liberal states in the union. Is it not enough until I leave my house every morning scolding my two neighbors for driving Suburbans? Speaking of which, why aren't we advocating that the President ride around in an electric car? It can be a Tesla for all I care.

No, I don't care about climate change as a political issue. I've seen environmentalists lobby in California to redirect farm water to rivers so that we don't hurt the wild salmon population. Meanwhile, millions of acres of California farm land are fallowed (I just drove through a dust storm last week, in fact, just northeast of Los Angeles. But the fish are safe!)

I've seen folks who can barely afford to replace their holed shoes have to shell out $80 to get their old car Smog certified so they can continue to legally drive and register it in this state.

Our refusal to create the Keystone XL pipeline does nothing to slow oil production nor reduce carbon emissions. It just ensures that Americans see no benefit from the Canadian shale boom. As if holding off on the pipeline will stop the flow of oil and make people in far more populous countries wake up and say, "oh yeah! We don't want fossil fuels anymore. Let's go solar!" Oil's here to stay right now. Take advantage and use the tax revenue to fund solar panel experiments if you must.

Meanwhile, we put more restrictions on coal power, causing layoffs at coal companies which start with the lowest common miner, not the CEO.

Too often these environmental causes are intended to create controls on big businesses, but instead they cause harm to the public.

Finally, as I've said before, if you really want to reduce carbon emissions. Get serious about nuclear power.

Until then, I don't give two flying rat's asses about climate change politics. Ignorance abounds on both sides - I'm "ignorant" about how important it is, and liberals are ignorant about the best way we currently have to fix it. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. WAIT! Don't. That causes carbon emissions.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled lack of giving a shit about this political topic. I will never vote for a candidate based on anything having to do with climate change. Wait, that's not true. I will actively oppose candidates who are too stupid to recognize anything positive about nuclear power. Enter Hillary Clinton and, frankly, most Democrats.
 
Right Wing think tanks? Really??


Originally posted by ecouch:
No it wasn't. Again, this a creation of the right wing think tanks. Since you seem to value meteorology, lets go right to the source. The American Meteorological Society and their paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.
This is just another attempt at revisionist history, much like the early proponents of Global Warming pushing the "Hockey Stick" graph showing centuries of consistent temperatures culminating in the exponential curve of warming in the last half century, caused by man made Global Warming. They found that the Warming period from 1000 AD to 1400 AD was an inconvenient truth, that had to be eliminated to add credence to their flawed theory, so they just made it go away. So much for the scientific method.

For something that is considered "Settled Science" by the believers, it sure seems to morph a lot. According to the computer models promoted by the GW believers, there should be little, if any Polar ice left and our coastal cities should be under water. Yet, Polar ice has been increasing and water levels have remained fairly consistent. Hmmmm, I guess we shouldn't believe our lying eyes.

Over the years, as it became more apparent to anyone capable of independent thought, the GW computer models continued to be far from accurate and people approached GW with a "whatever" attitude, The dialog changed as even the GW advocates must have seen the ridiculousness of their contentions and SHAZAM -- Climate Change was born. What a nice nebulous, catch-all term. GW required global temperatures to rise, whereas CC would cover all contingencies. Amazingly, we all know climate will change, since it always has and always will. Now we are being coerced into spending BILLIONS of tax dollars to keep Climate Change from happening. It would be hilarious, if the misguided believers weren't so serious.

In the early 90's, Al Gore sounded the alarm, that if we didn't do anything about GW within the next ten years, we were doomed. The effects of GW would be irreversible. I guess we all melted and no one had the decency to tell us. BTW, Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars selling "carbon credits" to people who felt guilty about having too large a carbon footprint. I hear he's one of his own best customers, so he can continue living his lavish lifestyle, while berating the rest of us. I suppose he gets an employee discount....

Now, Obama is proclaiming that CC is the single largest threat to mankind (apparently, he's unaware of ISIS, Putin, China, Ebola and the Iranian nuclear program) and he's willing to tax the abusers into submission. Yet, the true believers can't seem to understand that this is a scam, that is making some people very rich and is providing the government the opportunity to intrude ever more deeply into our lives.

FYI, at one time the vast majority of scientists concurred that the Earth was flat. At the time, it was considered settled science. At one time the majority of scientists agreed that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. At the time, it was considered settled science. The reality is that science is NEVER settled. True scientists ALWAYS regard "considered truths" with a certain level of skepticism. It makes the argument that "GW/CC is settled science, so we should just accept it and not question it", seem even more hollow. If the science was so irrefutable, and it's not, then why are they so determined to denigrate anyone who questions them? It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz saying, "Don't look behind the curtain. Ignore the man behind the curtain." I believe they'r afraid, that if too many people look behind the curtain, it will become obvious to the casual observer, that this is fraudulent science.

The GW/CC proponents are quick to point out that weather and climate are not the same thing, which is true to some extent. Weather is a subset of climate. When you consider how accurately we can predict the weather a month in advance, which is not very accurate at all, it makes it even more ridiculous, when people are telling us that they can predict what will occur on our planet related to climate. Take a minute to think about ALL the variables involved in either climate or weather. Then realize that a large number of these variables behave in a fairly random manner. Now try to write a computer program that allows for ALL that random variability. It's easy to understand why their computer models have been erroneous. It would probably be easier to pick the correct lottery numbers every week for a year. But, if they admit the task is too monumental to achieve, all the Federal Grants, that fund this research will dry up. (That's our tax dollars btw) I know we would all like to think of scientists as pure, unblemished searchers of truth, but in reality, scientists have to eat and feed their families, too. Right now, GW/CC research is the Golden Goose of Federal Grants. Hmmm, I wonder if that's why so many scientists are proponents of GW/CC? Yet some have the integrity to run counter to the herd.

This issue won't be settled on a message board, but I hope it does get settled fairly soon, before we piss away billions of tax dollars trying to change things, that can't be changed.

All I ask is that people THINK about what you're being TOLD to believe, and see if it passes the smell test. Does it make sense, or do your lying eyes keep coming up with exceptions to what you're being spoon fed? Think of all the times that politicians and the media have misrepresented (lied) things to you. Ignore the smug, arrogant GW/CC believers that try to belittle anyone who doesn't drink their brand of KoolAid. They are merely drones that recite the Left's talking points. They believe you're too stupid to make these decisions for yourself, so they, being the enlightened individuals that they are, should make all your life decisions for you, including what you think.
 
Re: I have no idea what he is saying either

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Pointless? I'm not sorry about such a ridiculous stance from a board member, but I am saddened by it. I had you pegged as a reasonable conservative, but I was wrong on this issue.
Ah yes, the old "if you don't agree with me, you're unreasonable."

I should qualify this: I do not care about climate change as a political issue. It is inevitable. It is not something that will be solved by politicians. It will be solved by scientists, who I suspect will tell us, "yeah, not much we can do."

That said, I'm not sure why any of you care that I don't care. I conserve water. I drive a relatively fuel efficient car. I recycle. I abide by the environmental laws of one of the most liberal states in the union. Is it not enough until I leave my house every morning scolding my two neighbors for driving Suburbans? Speaking of which, why aren't we advocating that the President ride around in an electric car? It can be a Tesla for all I care.

No, I don't care about climate change as a political issue. I've seen environmentalists lobby in California to redirect farm water to rivers so that we don't hurt the wild salmon population. Meanwhile, millions of acres of California farm land are fallowed (I just drove through a dust storm last week, in fact, just northeast of Los Angeles. But the fish are safe!)

I've seen folks who can barely afford to replace their holed shoes have to shell out $80 to get their old car Smog certified so they can continue to legally drive and register it in this state.

Our refusal to create the Keystone XL pipeline does nothing to slow oil production nor reduce carbon emissions. It just ensures that Americans see no benefit from the Canadian shale boom. As if holding off on the pipeline will stop the flow of oil and make people in far more populous countries wake up and say, "oh yeah! We don't want fossil fuels anymore. Let's go solar!" Oil's here to stay right now. Take advantage and use the tax revenue to fund solar panel experiments if you must.

Meanwhile, we put more restrictions on coal power, causing layoffs at coal companies which start with the lowest common miner, not the CEO.

Too often these environmental causes are intended to create controls on big businesses, but instead they cause harm to the public.

Finally, as I've said before, if you really want to reduce carbon emissions. Get serious about nuclear power.

Until then, I don't give two flying rat's asses about climate change politics. Ignorance abounds on both sides - I'm "ignorant" about how important it is, and liberals are ignorant about the best way we currently have to fix it. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. WAIT! Don't. That causes carbon emissions.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled lack of giving a shit about this political topic. I will never vote for a candidate based on anything having to do with climate change. Wait, that's not true. I will actively oppose candidates who are too stupid to recognize anything positive about nuclear power. Enter Hillary Clinton and, frankly, most Democrats.
I don't throw around compliments too often but....well done sir.
 
Re: Right Wing think tanks? Really??

Originally posted by BigE23:


Originally posted by ecouch:
No it wasn't. Again, this a creation of the right wing think tanks. Since you seem to value meteorology, lets go right to the source. The American Meteorological Society and their paper, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus.
This is just another attempt at revisionist history, much like the early proponents of Global Warming pushing the "Hockey Stick" graph showing centuries of consistent temperatures culminating in the exponential curve of warming in the last half century, caused by man made Global Warming. They found that the Warming period from 1000 AD to 1400 AD was an inconvenient truth, that had to be eliminated to add credence to their flawed theory, so they just made it go away. So much for the scientific method.

For something that is considered "Settled Science" by the believers, it sure seems to morph a lot. According to the computer models promoted by the GW believers, there should be little, if any Polar ice left and our coastal cities should be under water. Yet, Polar ice has been increasing and water levels have remained fairly consistent. Hmmmm, I guess we shouldn't believe our lying eyes.

Over the years, as it became more apparent to anyone capable of independent thought, the GW computer models continued to be far from accurate and people approached GW with a "whatever" attitude, The dialog changed as even the GW advocates must have seen the ridiculousness of their contentions and SHAZAM -- Climate Change was born. What a nice nebulous, catch-all term. GW required global temperatures to rise, whereas CC would cover all contingencies. Amazingly, we all know climate will change, since it always has and always will. Now we are being coerced into spending BILLIONS of tax dollars to keep Climate Change from happening. It would be hilarious, if the misguided believers weren't so serious.

In the early 90's, Al Gore sounded the alarm, that if we didn't do anything about GW within the next ten years, we were doomed. The effects of GW would be irreversible. I guess we all melted and no one had the decency to tell us. BTW, Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars selling "carbon credits" to people who felt guilty about having too large a carbon footprint. I hear he's one of his own best customers, so he can continue living his lavish lifestyle, while berating the rest of us. I suppose he gets an employee discount....

Now, Obama is proclaiming that CC is the single largest threat to mankind (apparently, he's unaware of ISIS, Putin, China, Ebola and the Iranian nuclear program) and he's willing to tax the abusers into submission. Yet, the true believers can't seem to understand that this is a scam, that is making some people very rich and is providing the government the opportunity to intrude ever more deeply into our lives.

FYI, at one time the vast majority of scientists concurred that the Earth was flat. At the time, it was considered settled science. At one time the majority of scientists agreed that the sun and stars revolved around the Earth. At the time, it was considered settled science. The reality is that science is NEVER settled. True scientists ALWAYS regard "considered truths" with a certain level of skepticism. It makes the argument that "GW/CC is settled science, so we should just accept it and not question it", seem even more hollow. If the science was so irrefutable, and it's not, then why are they so determined to denigrate anyone who questions them? It reminds me of the Wizard of Oz saying, "Don't look behind the curtain. Ignore the man behind the curtain." I believe they'r afraid, that if too many people look behind the curtain, it will become obvious to the casual observer, that this is fraudulent science.

The GW/CC proponents are quick to point out that weather and climate are not the same thing, which is true to some extent. Weather is a subset of climate. When you consider how accurately we can predict the weather a month in advance, which is not very accurate at all, it makes it even more ridiculous, when people are telling us that they can predict what will occur on our planet related to climate. Take a minute to think about ALL the variables involved in either climate or weather. Then realize that a large number of these variables behave in a fairly random manner. Now try to write a computer program that allows for ALL that random variability. It's easy to understand why their computer models have been erroneous. It would probably be easier to pick the correct lottery numbers every week for a year. But, if they admit the task is too monumental to achieve, all the Federal Grants, that fund this research will dry up. (That's our tax dollars btw) I know we would all like to think of scientists as pure, unblemished searchers of truth, but in reality, scientists have to eat and feed their families, too. Right now, GW/CC research is the Golden Goose of Federal Grants. Hmmm, I wonder if that's why so many scientists are proponents of GW/CC? Yet some have the integrity to run counter to the herd.

This issue won't be settled on a message board, but I hope it does get settled fairly soon, before we piss away billions of tax dollars trying to change things, that can't be changed.

All I ask is that people THINK about what you're being TOLD to believe, and see if it passes the smell test. Does it make sense, or do your lying eyes keep coming up with exceptions to what you're being spoon fed? Think of all the times that politicians and the media have misrepresented (lied) things to you. Ignore the smug, arrogant GW/CC believers that try to belittle anyone who doesn't drink their brand of KoolAid. They are merely drones that recite the Left's talking points. They believe you're too stupid to make these decisions for yourself, so they, being the enlightened individuals that they are, should make all your life decisions for you, including what you think.
1078584.gif
 
Re: Then explain.....


Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Originally posted by hunkgolden:
Good call 3 putt. Purdue and Iowa State just recently released a survey of scientists and farmers on man made global warming. Only 50% of scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming (if there is any) while only 8% of farmers hold this same belief.

How can this be "settled science" if there is a 50/50 split in scientific opinion?

And to whoever it was that started back pedaling on man's influence on weather - first of all it's nice to see you slowly but surely coming to your senses; but your buddy beazlebub isn't going to be able to throw around words like anthropogenic much longer if you and others on here continue to say these things.
Could you find a link to this "survey of scientists and farmers"? Why would farmers' opinion on whether or not climate change is influenced by man have value?

What I think about this issue will have little and less to do with what others are saying on this board. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that:
The earth is warmingThe dominant forcing behind that warming is CO2 from burning fossil fuelsThe rate of change is unprecedented in the paleoclimate record.
Does your ideology impact your view on other scientific facts? Evolution? Continental drift? Germ Theory? Are you an anti-vaxxer?
The Earth's temperature rise plateaued about 18 yrs ago and hasn't risen since. The Polar Ice Cap has replenished, which also debunks your "rising temperature" story. Based on your own comments in a post on a previous thread, CO2 is still increasing. If the theory of Global Warming were true, how could temperatures have stabilized with CO2 increasing? OOOPS, the science isn't settled quite yet.

I believe you had mentioned to me previously, that the computer models were 95% accurate. I remain skeptical about that assertion, but even if that were true, that is hardly accurate enough to consider anything settled. With all the random variables involved, I doubt that the accuracy will ever get any better.

Regarding farmers, you may want to consider that farmers make their living based on their awareness of what is occurring in their climate. They may not have the theoretical knowledge, but they certainly have the practical knowledge.
 
Re: Then explain.....

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Originally posted by hunkgolden:
Good call 3 putt. Purdue and Iowa State just recently released a survey of scientists and farmers on man made global warming. Only 50% of scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming (if there is any) while only 8% of farmers hold this same belief.

How can this be "settled science" if there is a 50/50 split in scientific opinion?

And to whoever it was that started back pedaling on man's influence on weather - first of all it's nice to see you slowly but surely coming to your senses; but your buddy beazlebub isn't going to be able to throw around words like anthropogenic much longer if you and others on here continue to say these things.
Could you find a link to this "survey of scientists and farmers"? Why would farmers' opinion on whether or not climate change is influenced by man have value?

What I think about this issue will have little and less to do with what others are saying on this board. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that:
The earth is warmingThe dominant forcing behind that warming is CO2 from burning fossil fuelsThe rate of change is unprecedented in the paleoclimate record.
Does your ideology impact your view on other scientific facts? Evolution? Continental drift? Germ Theory? Are you an anti-vaxxer?
The Earth's temperature rise plateaued about 18 yrs ago and hasn't risen since. The Polar Ice Cap has replenished, which also debunks your "rising temperature" story. Based on your own comments in a post on a previous thread, CO2 is still increasing. If the theory of Global Warming were true, how could temperatures have stabilized with CO2 increasing? OOOPS, the science isn't settled quite yet.

I believe you had mentioned to me previously, that the computer models were 95% accurate. I remain skeptical about that assertion, but even if that were true, that is hardly accurate enough to consider anything settled. With all the random variables involved, I doubt that the accuracy will ever get any better.

Regarding farmers, you may want to consider that farmers make their living based on their awareness of what is occurring in their climate. They may not have the theoretical knowledge, but they certainly have the practical knowledge.
1998 was an extraordinarily strong el nino, which led to higher temperatures. The climate system is more than just CO2, and oceanic processes in particular can lead to short term delays in temperature rise. That said, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, and 2014 is on pace to top them all. Will these facts make you stop using this argument?

What polar ice cap has replenished? If you're talking about the arctic ice sheet, why not go to the snow and ice data center to see data that shows the downward trend in ice coverage? Nothing has "replenished". The South pole has expanding seasonal sea ice, but the overall mass of both Greenland and Antarctica are decreasing.

The climate system has delays, so much of the heat isn't necessarily indicated by temperatures in the lower atmosphere. The oceans are a gigantic buffer due to their capacity to absorb heat, but they won't do so forever. The climate system is complex, but the physics of greenhouse gases retaining heat in that system is undeniable if you accept physics.

I'm not disparaging farmers. I respect their expertise on food production just as they should respect my expertise on climate.
 
Re: I have no idea what he is saying either

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:
Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Pointless? I'm not sorry about such a ridiculous stance from a board member, but I am saddened by it. I had you pegged as a reasonable conservative, but I was wrong on this issue.
Ah yes, the old "if you don't agree with me, you're unreasonable."

I should qualify this: I do not care about climate change as a political issue. It is inevitable. It is not something that will be solved by politicians. It will be solved by scientists, who I suspect will tell us, "yeah, not much we can do."

That said, I'm not sure why any of you care that I don't care. I conserve water. I drive a relatively fuel efficient car. I recycle. I abide by the environmental laws of one of the most liberal states in the union. Is it not enough until I leave my house every morning scolding my two neighbors for driving Suburbans? Speaking of which, why aren't we advocating that the President ride around in an electric car? It can be a Tesla for all I care.

No, I don't care about climate change as a political issue. I've seen environmentalists lobby in California to redirect farm water to rivers so that we don't hurt the wild salmon population. Meanwhile, millions of acres of California farm land are fallowed (I just drove through a dust storm last week, in fact, just northeast of Los Angeles. But the fish are safe!)

I've seen folks who can barely afford to replace their holed shoes have to shell out $80 to get their old car Smog certified so they can continue to legally drive and register it in this state.

Our refusal to create the Keystone XL pipeline does nothing to slow oil production nor reduce carbon emissions. It just ensures that Americans see no benefit from the Canadian shale boom. As if holding off on the pipeline will stop the flow of oil and make people in far more populous countries wake up and say, "oh yeah! We don't want fossil fuels anymore. Let's go solar!" Oil's here to stay right now. Take advantage and use the tax revenue to fund solar panel experiments if you must.

Meanwhile, we put more restrictions on coal power, causing layoffs at coal companies which start with the lowest common miner, not the CEO.

Too often these environmental causes are intended to create controls on big businesses, but instead they cause harm to the public.

Finally, as I've said before, if you really want to reduce carbon emissions. Get serious about nuclear power.

Until then, I don't give two flying rat's asses about climate change politics. Ignorance abounds on both sides - I'm "ignorant" about how important it is, and liberals are ignorant about the best way we currently have to fix it. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it. WAIT! Don't. That causes carbon emissions.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled lack of giving a shit about this political topic. I will never vote for a candidate based on anything having to do with climate change. Wait, that's not true. I will actively oppose candidates who are too stupid to recognize anything positive about nuclear power. Enter Hillary Clinton and, frankly, most Democrats.
Watch yourself, I think someone has a crush.

I'm not going to respond to all of your points, but I care about what you and other conservatives think because the discussion on this issue should be what to do about it more than whether or not it's happening (fact) or if it is due to human activity (fact).

I am not personally opposed to nuclear power, and I think there are good arguments for the implementation of such facilities. I agree that democrats are oftentimes opposed to technology (GMOs, nuclear energy, etc.) based on irrational fear of what they don't understand, and I even said as much in the thread above.
 
Re: Right Wing think tanks? Really??

Why didn't you read the paper?
 
Re: Then explain.....

He won't. The strategically named "pause" has been burnt into the psyche of a certain ideological segment. This is the third time in the past couple months the topic has been explained to him.
 
Re: Then explain.....

Originally posted by ecouch:
He won't. The strategically named "pause" has been burnt into the psyche of a certain ideological segment. This is the third time in the past couple months the topic has been explained to him.
I know, but I can't help myself. I am continuously amazed how overwhelming ideology is when compared to scientific evidence.
 
Re: Then explain.....

One thing that I have always found interesting about climate change discussions on the GD is the arguments used by each of the parties.

One side provides evidence, explanations, and data. One side will immediately go political and toss out obviously fallacious talking points. When those talking points are refuted with data, they crawl away. They have no interest in learning even the basics of atmospheric science, but maintain and repeat opinion. The conspiracy aspect bothers me the most.

This thread took it to another level when Gr8 felt sorry for scientists trying to figure out how our natural world works. I'm sorry Gr8, but I lost a little respect for you there. I know, you don't care, and shouldn't - it's just a message board. The lab tech sitting in a tent somewhere bundled to the gills taking core samples, or the research assistant staring at a model being ran for the thousandth time probably doesn't care about you either. But to shit on their work by feeling sorry for them...that's troubling because it camps you with the anti-intellectual right. See GMM and 85 for reference. Science is a process, not a thing. A truly uninterested individual wouldn't produce a page of copy that could be confused with Hannity's pre-show talking points.

Perhaps the fault lies with me. I assumed the GD board comes forth from a STEM background. I'm unaccustomed to being surrounded by folks who won't change their mind when prevented with evidence.

ETA: Equally annoying is those who refuse to read. One side over the past months has provided enough material and jumping off points to keep those that are truly interested in the topic busy for months.

This post was edited on 11/21 7:35 PM by ecouch
 
It's amazing


Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:
Originally posted by hunkgolden:
Good call 3 putt. Purdue and Iowa State just recently released a survey of scientists and farmers on man made global warming. Only 50% of scientists believe man is the main cause of global warming (if there is any) while only 8% of farmers hold this same belief.

How can this be "settled science" if there is a 50/50 split in scientific opinion?

And to whoever it was that started back pedaling on man's influence on weather - first of all it's nice to see you slowly but surely coming to your senses; but your buddy beazlebub isn't going to be able to throw around words like anthropogenic much longer if you and others on here continue to say these things.
Could you find a link to this "survey of scientists and farmers"? Why would farmers' opinion on whether or not climate change is influenced by man have value?

What I think about this issue will have little and less to do with what others are saying on this board. The evidence overwhelmingly supports that:
The earth is warmingThe dominant forcing behind that warming is CO2 from burning fossil fuelsThe rate of change is unprecedented in the paleoclimate record.
Does your ideology impact your view on other scientific facts? Evolution? Continental drift? Germ Theory? Are you an anti-vaxxer?
The Earth's temperature rise plateaued about 18 yrs ago and hasn't risen since. The Polar Ice Cap has replenished, which also debunks your "rising temperature" story. Based on your own comments in a post on a previous thread, CO2 is still increasing. If the theory of Global Warming were true, how could temperatures have stabilized with CO2 increasing? OOOPS, the science isn't settled quite yet.

I believe you had mentioned to me previously, that the computer models were 95% accurate. I remain skeptical about that assertion, but even if that were true, that is hardly accurate enough to consider anything settled. With all the random variables involved, I doubt that the accuracy will ever get any better.

Regarding farmers, you may want to consider that farmers make their living based on their awareness of what is occurring in their climate. They may not have the theoretical knowledge, but they certainly have the practical knowledge.
1998 was an extraordinarily strong el nino, which led to higher temperatures. The climate system is more than just CO2, and oceanic processes in particular can lead to short term delays in temperature rise. That said, both 2010 and 2005 were warmer than 1998, and 2014 is on pace to top them all. Will these facts make you stop using this argument?

What polar ice cap has replenished? If you're talking about the arctic ice sheet, why not go to the snow and ice data center to see data that shows the downward trend in ice coverage? Nothing has "replenished". The South pole has expanding seasonal sea ice, but the overall mass of both Greenland and Antarctica are decreasing.

The climate system has delays, so much of the heat isn't necessarily indicated by temperatures in the lower atmosphere. The oceans are a gigantic buffer due to their capacity to absorb heat, but they won't do so forever. The climate system is complex, but the physics of greenhouse gases retaining heat in that system is undeniable if you accept physics.

I'm not disparaging farmers. I respect their expertise on food production just as they should respect my expertise on climate.
how there's always a rationale for why the computer models weren't accurate. It's the El Nino, the ocean is retaining more heat, etc, etc. 2014 is going to be the hottest yet, as we set new record lows on a daily basis. Oh, that's right, that's the weather I'm talking about and not the climate. Cherry picking the data that supports your theory and dismissing the data that doesn't is not science.
 
Re: It's amazing

Why do you continually refuse to read any argument against your position?

ETA: In addition, you appear to be denying actual data.

2014 is going to be the hottest yet, as we set new record lows on a daily basis.

Are you honestly debating this?

This post was edited on 11/21 8:51 PM by ecouch
 
Re: It's amazing

The following are honest questions that will sound condescending, but:

What do you think a model is? Which models weren't accurate?

El Nino years lead to warmer average global temperature. Do you dispute this? Do you know what an El Nino is?

Do you understand the term "specific heat" or "heat capacity"?

Do you understand the difference between weather and climate?

Do you dispute that 2014 is on course to be the warmest global average temperature on record?

You're correct about cherry picking, so why do you use 1998 as a starting point for your "pause"? Do you agree that you're cherry picking the data to support your "argument" that the warming "pause" began on an el nino year?
 
Re: It's amazing

Why do all of the denialists vanish when evidence is brought to the table?
 
Re: It's amazing

Originally posted by ecouch:
Why do all of the denialists vanish when evidence is brought to the table?
They'll be back at some point with a long-winded post full of the same talking points and a link to a James Taylor or Anthony Watts. I expect the next post will coincide with a cold-snap in the Eastern US.
 
Re: It's amazing

Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Originally posted by ecouch:
Why do all of the denialists vanish when evidence is brought to the table?
They'll be back at some point with a long-winded post full of the same talking points and a link to a James Taylor or Anthony Watts. I expect the next post will coincide with a cold-snap in the Eastern US.


That is why I don't/won't post anymore on this subject. The tact of "everyone agrees" or "97% of the scientists" that comes out of the Washington press etc and passed on by it's supporters is simply just not worth the effort to fight. To the other side on this board I give credit of no flaming "morons" "idiots" comments that so many throw of my the left-so thanks! There is PLENTY of verifiable disagreement on the subject but the playbook of shout it down has backfired on a plurality if not a majority on this subject-hence why the public yawns. Many posts ago I talked about a Phd in Bio/Enviro engineering with a RM (registered meteorologist) designation with a good number in that department (I am too long gone the past 1-12 years to know the number now as it could have changed) that are deniers that man is the cause (40-60, 50-50, 60-40 don't know anymore -I am too long gone from the area). Also posted some other rebuttal.

You won't change my theory and I won't change your theory- so lets agree to disagree.
 
Re: It's amazing

Originally posted by threeeputtt:
Originally posted by Beeazlebub:

Originally posted by ecouch:
Why do all of the denialists vanish when evidence is brought to the table?
They'll be back at some point with a long-winded post full of the same talking points and a link to a James Taylor or Anthony Watts. I expect the next post will coincide with a cold-snap in the Eastern US.


That is why I don't/won't post anymore on this subject. The tact of "everyone agrees" or "97% of the scientists" that comes out of the Washington press etc and passed on by it's supporters is simply just not worth the effort to fight. To the other side on this board I give credit of no flaming "morons" "idiots" comments that so many throw of my the left-so thanks! There is PLENTY of verifiable disagreement on the subject but the playbook of shout it down has backfired on a plurality if not a majority on this subject-hence why the public yawns. Many posts ago I talked about a Phd in Bio/Enviro engineering with a RM (registered meteorologist) designation with a good number in that department (I am too long gone the past 1-12 years to know the number now as it could have changed) that are deniers that man is the cause (40-60, 50-50, 60-40 don't know anymore -I am too long gone from the area). Also posted some other rebuttal.

You won't change my theory and I won't change your theory- so lets agree to disagree.
Actually, we should have a data-based discussion. We don't have opposing theories because there is no alternate scientific theory to explain the warming in the climate system. If the data stop supporting anthropogenic global warming, I'll change my position. I don't expect that to happen.
 
Re: It's amazing

If your theory won't change based on evidence you aren't engaged in a scientific endeavor. That is the scientific method 101. You should have learned that in middle school. It would much easier if you simply admitted an ideology instead of an evidence based position.
 
Re: It's amazing

Do you understand what a scientific theory is?

Why did you abandon the conversation?
 
Re: It's amazing

I abandonded the discussion because neither of us are going to change the others opinions. I have already stated what scientists from our own Purdue would expouse several posts prior, yes many in that department don't believe it (I no longer have any contacts from that era so it is possible the number has changed). Yes, I fully understand the scientific method. It won't be the first nor last time there are errors. Are you a chemist, physicist, engineer? I know Al Gore isn't and he didn't even finish law school. What is he an expert at?

Galileo was ridiculed by scientists invested in the idea the sun revolves around the Earth. Robert Goddard — the man who ushered in the Space Age and rocket ships — was ridiculed endlessly during his life for proposing . . . traveling to the moon.




William Harvey was ostracized for proposing the theory of blood circulation.

How about earth wobble (I have no clue): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

From Nasa studies: http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Ancient digs: http://news.yahoo.com/colorado-mastodon-bones-show-warm-ancient-earth-190530926.html

Nobel Prize winnner differs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever

Or, the controversial reports of "doctored data". Ad nauseum the other side has tried to drown out that issue.

And, you can cite volumes to refute also. Let the debate continue with others not me. You may not understand, I have seen glaciers recede and believe there probably has been some warming. The question still is: why? Again, I get turned off when I read Washingtonites say "97% agree" or "it is agreed by all", what BS (sounds like our friend Mr. Gruber the liar)! You can't even get doctors agree on complex medicine cures more than maybe 1/3 to 2/3 or 2/3 to 1/3 in their field, especially early in the understanding of whatever the debate may be about. Simply, there are way too many variables not even considered that makes it a moot point for me and I am not a scientist.







I respectfully agree to disagree.





This post was edited on 11/27 10:19 PM by threeeputtt
 
Re: Yep

You just did a "every time the weather goes to extremes..." yourself cheerleading the coldest year on record at Purdue. Yet if someone on the "other side" points out something "ever on record" you're quick to point out records don't go back that far, etc.

Secondly, climate change that scientists talk about - "extremes" are part of the indicators. Does 1 single weather event indicate an overall trend? No, but 1 single event that people take notice of can represent an overall issue that scientists see. We, as US citizens, don't pay attention to the weather across the world - we just don't care because that weather does not affect us. Doesn't mean nothing abnormal is happening outside of the US. These people monitor this stuff year round.

As far as my stance is on climate, I am not some crazy environmentalist. I prefer to have a high MPG car because I'd rather not pay all the money in gas/fill up all the time. I'd also prefer to take the train to NYC from DC and not drive. Not because of environmental reasons, I just would prefer not to drive, I can relax and do other things, etc. I also do not understand the harm in raising MPG standards (which people found offensive?) as we should be using less oil for a variety of reasons, not just 1 and certainly not just 1 that's an environmental reason.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT