Setting up the Global Warming lies to come

[Koko78]

Of course not. He hasn't threatened to dump a beer on my head yet.

 

Alcohol abuse will not be tolerated.

[Deranged Rhino]

I haven't kept up with the thread and won't read it all, but I find it hilarious that what was once "global warming" is now "climate change" because most people can't believe there's "warming" when the south is getting hit with snow. But that's libs for you: forever moving the goalposts.

 

It was the fourth warmest year on record for the planet, despite the snow some saw. For those keeping score, that's the 37th consecutive year that the temperature was above the long term average and the warmest years on record have all occurred since '98 (NOAA).

 

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your politics...

Edited March 15, 2014 by GreggyT

[Jim in Anchorage]

It was the fourth warmest year on record for the planet, despite the snow some saw. For those keeping score, that's the 37th consecutive year that the temperature was above the long term average and the warmest years on record have all occurred since '98 (NOAA).

 

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your politics...

And what do you think we can do about it?

[Deranged Rhino]

And what do you think we can do about it?

I'm not sure. But I do know that pretending it isn't happening is no solution. It's amazing that conservatives can be so pro-active when it comes to national defense and so obtuse when it comes to a threat that is bigger than any other foreign power on the planet combined. Wonder why that is...

[Tiberius]

 

Wonder why that is...

 

The people that create Conservative public opinion are heavily financed by the powerful oil and gas industry and a huge portion of the Conservative base is so f'd up on religion that they deny not only MMGW but evolution.

[3rdnlng]

It was the fourth warmest year on record for the planet, despite the snow some saw. For those keeping score, that's the 37th consecutive year that the temperature was above the long term average and the warmest years on record have all occurred since '98 (NOAA).

 

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your politics...

 

Greg:

 

Please place your ascertations in context. A link would be nice. Stating that it was the fourth warmest year on record means little. First of all, where were the temperatures taken and have there been any changes to either the surrounding areas or to the locations of the instruments used? Second, "on record" certainly qualifies your statement. Third, take a look at the article at my link below. It will place this whole global warming conjecture in its place.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

 

"Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. Eske Willerslev, a professor at Copenhagen University, has analysed the world's oldest DNA, preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA is likely close to half a million years old, and the research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland."

 

The people that create Conservative public opinion are heavily financed by the powerful oil and gas industry and a huge portion of the Conservative base is so f'd up on religion that they deny not only MMGW but evolution.

 

Talk about pollution...................this thread does not need your horseshit opining. Do you have some crazy goal of f'n up every thread?

[Deranged Rhino]

Greg:

 

Please place your ascertations in context.

I did, the information is from NOAA.gov. Whether or not it happened before or if it's caused by man means little to me, that's a political argument that crazy righties and crazy lefties have hijacked to distract people from truth.The climate is changing incredibly fast on a geological scale. That will have an impact on every day people (as it already is) and will cost taxpayers untold billions down the line.

 

Climate change is an issue of national defense. But you cannot even discuss it with people on the hard core right (or left) without getting bogged down in bull ****.

[Tiberius]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/07/070705153019.htm

 

"Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate. Eske Willerslev, a professor at Copenhagen University, has analysed the world's oldest DNA, preserved under the kilometre-thick icecap. The DNA is likely close to half a million years old, and the research is painting a picture which is overturning all previous assumptions about biological life and the climate in Greenland."

Talk about pollution...................this thread does not need your horseshit opining. Do you have some crazy goal of f'n up every

 

You post a link that states global warming is real and you use it as proof that it's not? What a f'n idiot you are!

[Deranged Rhino]

The people that create Conservative public opinion are heavily financed by the powerful oil and gas industry ....

To be fair, those same industries donate to both sides.

[Tiberius]

 

To be fair, those same industries donate to both sides.

They sure do, which accounts for a lot of the foot dragging on the Dem side

[Deranged Rhino]

They sure do, which accounts for a lot of the foot dragging on the Dem side

Which is why this issue should be separated from politics completely. But with too much money involved, that won't happen until more people die.

[3rdnlng]

You post a link that states global warming is real and you use it as proof that it's not? What a f'n idiot you are!

 

Pay attention. I posted a link to a scientific article that stated that the earth was quite a bit warmer 100's of thousands of years ago. The warming and cooling goes in cycles. You insist that it is MMGW. I read that CO2 concentrations were many times higher in years past. I'll have to look that up and post it here, but for the idiots like you will find a way to ignore it or completely twist it.

 

BTW, I have a new joke for you. There were three Russian deaths in protests recently. That would be a good one for you to tell your daughter.

 

Which is why this issue should be separated from politics completely. But with too much money involved, that won't happen until more people die.

 

Who's dying?

[DC Tom]

Malaysia Air MH370 disappeared because of global warming, too. The historical record indicates that powered flight is impossible when the CO2 levels in the atmosphere exceed 395 PPM.

[DC Tom]

It was the fourth warmest year on record for the planet, despite the snow some saw. For those keeping score, that's the 37th consecutive year that the temperature was above the long term average and the warmest years on record have all occurred since '98 (NOAA).

 

 

But don't let facts get in the way of your politics...

 

Seriously, there's severe problems with statements like that from the NOAA: the mechanisms and standards of measurements of "global" temperature have changed at least three times over in the time span of "recorded" data.

 

And above and beyond that, they're cherry-picking their baseline. You start your measurements at 1880, and they support the NOAA's statement. You start at 1600, and the current temperature anomaly is even more severe. On the other hand, you start at 800, or 200, and the current anomaly is statistically barely relevant.

 

And then there's the rather obvious point to be made that the "runaway" global warming evidenced by the "hockey stick" that starts in the '70s corresponds very precisely to the start of the reduction of aerosols (e.g. SO2) that had an artificial cooling effect...so you would expect, over a 130-year baseline, the last 40 years to be warmer than average just because of the reduction of the anthropogenic cooling.

 

The bottom line is that maybe 80% of the time, whoever's writing the article/op-ed/press release/research cherry-picks the constraints of the data set to prove their preconceived notions. Even the NOAA (and especially NASA, by the way).

[Deranged Rhino]

Seriously, there's severe problems with statements like that from the NOAA: the mechanisms and standards of measurements of "global" temperature have changed at least three times over in the time span of "recorded" data.

 

And above and beyond that, they're cherry-picking their baseline. You start your measurements at 1880, and they support the NOAA's statement. You start at 1600, and the current temperature anomaly is even more severe. On the other hand, you start at 800, or 200, and the current anomaly is statistically barely relevant.

 

And then there's the rather obvious point to be made that the "runaway" global warming evidenced by the "hockey stick" that starts in the '70s corresponds very precisely to the start of the reduction of aerosols (e.g. SO2) that had an artificial cooling effect...so you would expect, over a 130-year baseline, the last 40 years to be warmer than average just because of the reduction of the anthropogenic cooling.

 

The bottom line is that maybe 80% of the time, whoever's writing the article/op-ed/press release/research cherry-picks the constraints of the data set to prove their preconceived notions. Even the NOAA (and especially NASA, by the way).

I am (clearly) not a scientist or pretending to be one, so I realize this is coming from a completely unscientific background and deserve any kind of science data smack-down I got coming.

 

But, since the cause is completely irrelevant to me and only maintaining a liveable habitat matters, why would data from any era that predates man matter unless it was a repeating pattern? And if it is a repeating pattern, natural or otherwise, shouldn't the discussion be on how to limit the impact such an inevitable shift in climate rather than engaging in a pissing match over whether or not it's caused by man? A huge portion of the human population lives along the coastlines on the planet. If seas are rising, which (I believe) they are, and climate is changing, which (I believe) it is, those people are going to have to move -- maybe not in our lifetime, but soon. That's MILLIONS if not BILLIONS of people.

 

What kind of impact does the forced migration of millions of people have on the US's international and domestic interests?

 

 

*Edited to emphasize my ignorance of the science

Edited March 16, 2014 by GreggyT

[Tiberius]

Pay attention. I posted a link to a scientific article that stated that the earth was quite a bit warmer 100's of thousands of years ago. The warming and cooling goes in cycles. You insist that it is MMGW. I read that CO2 concentrations were many times higher in years past. I'll have to look that up and post it here, but for the idiots like you will find a way to ignore it or completely twist it.

 

BTW, I have a new joke for you. There were three Russian deaths in protests recently. That would be a good one for you to tell your daughter.

 

 

 

Who's dying?

Oh, I see, you are trying to claim that its all a coincidence that we are pouring all this carbon into the atmosphere and the temps are rising? So just continue on full speed because there is nothing we can do. Maybe you are right, but I doubt it.

 

And stop trying to score points using the deaths of innocent people. Shame on you

[Jim in Anchorage]

I'm not sure. But I do know that pretending it isn't happening is no solution. It's amazing that conservatives can be so pro-active when it comes to national defense and so obtuse when it comes to a threat that is bigger than any other foreign power on the planet combined. Wonder why that is...

So you take a do something, anything even if it's wrong approach? Humans can wail and cry and even just disappear and it won't change the temperature of the earth by a degree. It's a natural cycle that's been going on for billions of years and we can't stop it.

[Deranged Rhino]

So you take a do something, anything even if it's wrong approach? Humans can wail and cry and even just disappear and it won't change the temperature of the earth by a degree. It's a natural cycle that's been going on for billions of years and we can't stop it.

I'm not advocating any approach other than one that allows this topic to be actually discussed without the political baggage that's been crammed down its throat. You might be right that humans aren't impacting the climate to the degree 90% of the "scientists" (quotes for Tom's benefit) on the planet think we are. I don't want to pretend for a second that I understand a lot of the science behind it, because I don't. And I don't want to fall into a political debate about it because I'm a-political in the traditional sense.

 

But let's assume you're right that it is a natural cycle and as a species we are at its complete mercy. Don't you think it's wise for us to acknowledge the cycle is changing in ways that are impacting our ability to grow enough food and rapidly (on a geological time scale) diminishing coastlines across the globe? Forget the cause, the question should be what we can do to minimize the damage and cost -- both financial and human -- that we are inevitably going to have to deal with. Isn't that the purpose of identifying natural cycles in the first place? To be able to predict coming calamities and course correct if possible.

 

Right now though, because there's so much dirty money on both sides of the issue, you cannot talk about it without raising people's own political biases. The lobbyists have made the word Climate Change as toxic as Pro-Life. If someone says they are pro-life, the immediate knee jerk reaction from liberals is negative -- oh, you must be crazy religious / stupid / blah-blah -- whether it's true or not. That's what's happened to the term Climate Change, you cannot even discuss it without people immediately making assumptions about your "angle".

 

And as I said earlier, I legit don't have an angle on this issue other than I think the climate is changing and sooner or later its going to have be dealt with. I don't care about who caused it, all I care about is being proactive on the issue rather than getting bogged down in the politics of it. Which, I know, is impossible. And that's what's f'd-up.

Edited March 16, 2014 by GreggyT

[3rdnlng]

I'm not advocating any approach other than one that allows this topic to be actually discussed without the political baggage that's been crammed down its throat. You might be right that humans aren't impacting the climate to the degree 90% of the "scientists" (quotes for Tom's benefit) on the planet think we are. I don't want to pretend for a second that I understand a lot of the science behind it, because I don't. And I don't want to fall into a political debate about it because I'm a-political in the traditional sense.

 

But let's assume you're right that it is a natural cycle and as a species we are at its complete mercy. Don't you think it's wise for us to acknowledge the cycle is changing in ways that are impacting our ability to grow enough food and rapidly (on a geological time scale) diminishing coastlines across the globe? Forget the cause, the question should be what we can do to minimize the damage and cost -- both financial and human -- that we are inevitably going to have to deal with. Isn't the the purpose of identifying natural cycles in the first place? To be able to predict coming calamities and course correct if possible.

 

Right now though, because there's so much dirty money on both sides of the issue, you cannot talk about it without raising people's own political biases. The lobbyists have made the word Climate Change as toxic as Pro-Life. If someone says they are pro-life, the immediate knee jerk reaction from liberals is negative -- oh, you must be crazy religious / stupid / blah-blah -- whether it's true or not. That's what's happened to the term Climate Change, you cannot even discuss it without people immediately making assumptions about your "angle".

 

And as I said earlier, I legit don't have an angle on this issue other than I think the climate is changing and sooner or later its going to have be dealt with. I don't care about who caused it, all I care about is being proactive on the issue rather than getting bogged down in the politics of it. Which, I know, is impossible. And that's what's f'd-up.

 

Uh, it's been the left who have made this political and a religion. I'm open for discussion but not one that starts out saying I'm an evil denier. Now I have always thought you to be a thinking person. Do you actually think for a minute that we can get India and China, who are by far the worst polluters (quantity wise) to change their practices? Our actual pollution here is a drop in the bucket compared to them. Should we set such strict standards here that we further impoverish USA citizens?

 

If the left here in this country actually wanted to have an adult conversation they could have it. They can't try to banish the people that want to have a fair discussion to the kiddie table in order to have it. On a side note, don't you think Gondolas on Park Ave. in NYC would be cool?

[Deranged Rhino]

Uh, it's been the left who have made this political and a religion. I'm open for discussion but not one that starts out saying I'm an evil denier.

The left hijacked the term, there is no denying it. But I'm not at all saying you're denying it. Unless I've misread what you're saying (which is more than possible considering it's saturday night), you're saying it's happening just not caused by us. I don't have a dog in that fight but a lot of people do.

 

Now I have always thought you to be a thinking person. Do you actually think for a minute that we can get India and China, who are by far the worst polluters (quantity wise) to change their practices? Our actual pollution here is a drop in the bucket compared to them. Should we set such strict standards here that we further impoverish USA citizens?

I'm saying all of this with an admittedly huge caveat that I don't have answers. I don't pretend to. I understand the basic concepts enough to realize it's a global issue, not a national one, and has many delicate connections to economic and foreign relation issues. I also know America can't solve it alone.

 

But that doesn't mean we can't worry about the ramifications it will have here on us whether we do anything about it or not. America's breadbasket is California, over 80% of the domestic food comes from California farms, and the state is experiencing the most severe drought in its history. It might be a one time thing, a blip, but if it's more frequent, that will impoverish us pretty quickly.

 

If the left here in this country actually wanted to have an adult conversation they could have it. They can't try to banish the people that want to have a fair discussion to the kiddie table in order to have it. On a side note, don't you think Gondolas on Park Ave. in NYC would be cool?

 

Again, I'm not excusing the left in my personal distaste for how the public discourse on this subject is being handled. I have my problems with folks on the right with this issue too, but the left is just as bad in my opinion.

 

And Gondolas on Park Ave is a million dollar idea when the water raises! Get on that!! I'd totally ride one.

Edited March 16, 2014 by GreggyT