May 21st.....end of the world?

[goinbroke2]

Speaking of the climate change hysteria....

Friends of ours who moved here from England a year or so ago had their daughter and her family visit from England for a couple weeks.

 

HOLY @#$%! How ever bad you think your country is...the UK is worse! What I couldn't get over is the "sheeple mentality".

Let's see;

"everybody knows humans are killing the earth"

"scientist said co2 is bad so it must be, why would they lie?"

"thousands of people have died because of nuclear power, it should be banned"

To which I said WHAT?? There was like 100 people killed in chernoble! "No there was thousands killed initially and tens of thousands because of the fall out"

The next day I took my kid to the library and pop science had an article on nuke power...56 were killed in chernoble!

 

The conversations all had nannystate mentality. The answer was always "government should..."

 

Since we were there for supper and we were bbqing, the question was asked "why does everyone have a bbq here?" So I said it is part of our constitution, Canadians HAVE to own a bbq and use it year round. "SERIOUSLY?" We never bbq. Some have disposable charcoal bbq's but they burn the food and leave the meat raw inside. Many people every year die from eating undercooked meat. We've tried it, but it's just not safe.

 

The supper we just finished was bbq'd......the meat was cooked and not burnt right? "well the government report said...."

AHHHH!!! STOP WITH THE FREAKING GOVERNMENT SAID! THINK FOR YOURSELVES!

 

That was when the wife said "ok...time to go"

The funny part was, the father was trying to convince both of them how he's "found out it's different here" and "people choose what they want to do instead of being told" Of course he's was saying "that's because Canada is so relatively young and will get more socialist in the years to come."

 

Whatever, I just shook my head. I said if your moving here, leave the socialist attitudes behind.

 

Canadian immigrants were primarily european based in the past. I thought this was good due to the work ethic etc. Now I'm concerned, if these are what is to come of european immigrants, maybe we got enough!

[timmm55]

"Global warming" didn't get thrown into the mix. It's the charlatans promoting it that got thrown in. Harold Camping is a fool and his followers are dupes. So are the believers in the global warming doomsayers' statements regarding CO2.

 

 

 

So the climatologists are charlatans? Since you are the "Voice of Reason" who is correct?

 

There is no correlation between doomsdayers and global warming researchers. One says we can't do anything about it, the other says we can. Maybe it's all bunk, the scientists don't all agree, but until there is a consensus among climatologists that there isn't global warming/climate change ...I'll be in their corner.

 

Edited May 25, 2011 by timmm55

[RangerM]

So the climatologists are charlatans?

The "climatologists" aren't a single group of like-minded people, unless in order to be considered a "climatologist" you must follow a single, party line.

 

Yes, the one's whose predictions of doom have not come to pass, and yet still "live the lie" are charlatans.

There is no correlation between doomsdayers and global warming researchers.

One's theory came from the Bible. The other's theory came from (misinterpreted, or outright falsified) data. They are both riding on faith. And up to now they've both been wrong.

One says we can't do anything about it, the other says we can.

And yet without any action on my, your or anyone else's part, nothing happened. No mass starvation. No climate "refugees". No flooding. No unusual numbers of severe hurricanes. Nothing that hasn't happened before or during man's industrial existence.

[suv_guy_19]

 

"scientist said co2 is bad so it must be, why would they lie?"

 

That's actually an excellent question. The answer is one you don't really like. They have very little if any reason to.

[suv_guy_19]

The "climatologists" aren't a single group of like-minded people, unless in order to be considered a "climatologist" you must follow a single, party line.

 

Actually, when it comes to climate change, scientists generally (and increasingly) agree, and agree that something needs to be done.

[Cocheese]

Maybe it's all bunk, the scientists don't all agree, but until there is a consensus among climatologists that there isn't global warming/climate change ...I'll be in their corner.

 

So I take it you believe the Loch Ness Monster, Big Foot & Martians exists, since there isn't a consensus that says they don't? Man, I'm glad you weren't around when someone challenged scientists' beliefs that the world was flat, or that space travel was impossible.

 

Do you also believe that if someone is on trial for a crime, they must prove themselves innocent of that crime, instead of the accusers having to prove him guilty?

 

You backwards logic only proves how ridiculous the Global Warmists claims are.

 

Actually, when it comes to climate change, scientists generally (and increasingly) agree, and agree that something needs to be done.

 

So it's "Climate Change" now right? They're not going to change it again are they?

 

The funny thing is, from what I have seen, it seems more and more scientists are disagreeing with the findings concerning "Climate Change". Some on whether it is actually happening, some on what is causing it, and some about what the conclusions are. If it was so real, I can't help but wonder why there are so many varying opinions.

 

Of course, the last part of your sentence pretty much sums it all up. They agree that "something needs to be done", but because they can't agree on if it is happening, why it is happening, what is causing it, or how to fix it if it is happening, then they don't know what to do to fix it. Man I am glad these guys aren't the mechanics at the dealership.

 

"Sorry suv, your 300C is broken. But we're not sure what is wrong with it, how it happened, or how we can fix it. But trust us that there is something wrong. So please bring it into the shop and leave your credit card at the desk, and we'll let you know if we get it fixed. PS, tell your friends about us."

 

Man you people scare me.

[RangerM]

Actually, when it comes to climate change, scientists generally (and increasingly) agree, and agree that something needs to be done.

Agreeing that climate change is happening is something I'd HOPE most scientists would concede. It's the root cause of that change where scientists disagree.

 

You have people--right now--promoting the idea that the recent tornadic activity in the US to due to climate change and by extension, humans. Not a good thing for a people who want to be taken seriously.

 

The question of "what needs to be done" can generally go two ways, prevention or reaction. At this point, prevention isn't practical politically or economically.

[suv_guy_19]

 

So it's "Climate Change" now right? They're not going to change it again are they?

 

 

 

It always has been climate change. It's also global warming. They're the same thing, and always have been.

 

 

[suv_guy_19]

You have people--right now--promoting the idea that the recent tornadic activity in the US to due to climate change and by extension, humans. Not a good thing for a people who want to be taken seriously.

 

Well see. An increase in extreme weather has always been a predicted outcome of AGW.

[RangerM]

Well see. An increase in extreme weather has always been a predicted outcome of AGW.

 

Since "extreme weather" isn't anything that hasn't occurred before, what would be required for AGW to be false?

[suv_guy_19]

Since "extreme weather" isn't anything that hasn't occurred before, what would be required for AGW to be false?

 

AGW is all about trending, trending speed, and correlation. I know that people will provide evidence to the contrary from denier blogs and some examples of individual scientists and data sets that disagree, but the reality is that the trending supports the hypothesis, which means that we need to do something about it, either to prepare, or to slow or stop the change.

[Cocheese]

It always has been climate change. It's also global warming. They're the same thing, and always have been.

 

Don't forget about when it was called Global Cooling.

[suv_guy_19]

Don't forget about when it was called Global Cooling.

 

That was never something that gained major acceptance.

[RangerM]

AGW is all about trending, trending speed, and correlation. I know that people will provide evidence to the contrary from denier blogs and some examples of individual scientists and data sets that disagree, but the reality is that the trending supports the hypothesis, which means that we need to do something about it, either to prepare, or to slow or stop the change.

It seems to me that the "A" in AGW is about causation. As in, the cause is already presumed, but the data to support that presumption is contradictory. The trends have been established as not unprecedented. The rest is limited to the availability of reliable data. Remember the hockey stick? That was supposed to support the hypothesis. Except, it turned out that it didn't.

 

Outliers exist in almost every dataset, however they also would indicate weakness in the hypothesis of the existence of other factors not understood.

[suv_guy_19]

It seems to me that the "A" in AGW is about causation. As in, the cause is already presumed, but the data to support that presumption is contradictory. The trends have been established as not unprecedented.

 

That isn't true from what I've read (and I'm no expert on this, so I leave it to the experts). The warming we've experience over the last century and a bit is pretty much unrivaled in terms of speed.

 

 

 

[Cocheese]

The warming we've experience over the last century and a bit is pretty much unrivaled in terms of speed.

 

It has been estimated (by scientists) that the planet is 4.5 Billion years old (yes, that's a B). Yet, climate records have only been tracked for a minute fraction of that time. So honestly, how do we really know if this "warming" has ever been rivaled?

 

As well, why do the people who are so adamant about the "warming", the same ones who warned everyone about Global Cooling only a short time ago?

[suv_guy_19]

It has been estimated (by scientists) that the planet is 4.5 Billion years old (yes, that's a B). Yet, climate records have only been tracked for a minute fraction of that time. So honestly, how do we really know if this "warming" has ever been rivaled?

 

We can extrapolate records for hundreds of thousands of years using data from ice cors and fossilized plants and animals. Regardless, humans have only been around for a fraction of the planets existence. We don't want to harm the delicate eco system in such a way that it can't support us in our current numbers. I think we're a long way off from that, but we have to do something one way or another.

 

As well, why do the people who are so adamant about the "warming", the same ones who warned everyone about Global Cooling only a short time ago?

 

Prove that. I've heard no evidence that global cooling was ever widely accepted.

[mustang_sallad]

One's theory came from the Bible. The other's theory came from (misinterpreted, or outright falsified) data.

 

weak. You can't make a blanket statement that all of the climate data we've collected over the years is misinterpreted or falsified, just as you can't go and say that it conclusively points towards anthropocentric global warming. I am 100% certain that plenty of data has been misinterpreted, hell I misinterpret data at my job all the bloody time. That doesn't mean I just give up and say that whatever science I'm trying to grasp is just blind faith. You always have to make the best guesses from your current level of understanding, and strive to improve your understanding. A select few qualified people have made their best guess that we may not be having a noticeable impact on the planet's climate. A MUCH larger number of equally qualified people have made their best guess and it suggests that we may indeed be responsible for the intense climate change we're currently witnessing.

[xr7g428]

To be a climatologist, which is a field that did not even exist until recently, requires NOT knowing a lot of things in order to accept the theory of AGW.

 

The AGW hypothesis falls apart when examined in pieces by the experts on each piece. The physics people look at the physics and say that the idea that heat travels toward heat defies physics. The statistics people look at the use of statistics in the models and say that the statistics do not support the conclusions. The people who forecast the weather look at forecasts for climate and determine that the weather events don't happen the way they would have to. The list goes on and on.

 

Specifically, the thumb print for global warming is a increase in temperature in the upper layers of the atmosphere. This piece is missing. This is very clear to the people who study the atmosphere.

 

The statisticians discovered that any data set fed into the models always produced the same results. This is the classic definition of finding what you are looking for, even when it isn't there.

 

The weather forecasters pointed out that the biggest driver for severe weather is the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, which global warming would reduce dramatically.

 

The IPCC predicted significant warming by 2010, ten years ago. The predicted changes did not occur even thought carbon emissions were dramatically higher then forecast.

 

The severe hurricanes that were to be the signature for AGW, never did appear.

 

The increases in sea level did not appear. (although it was later determined that the over 75 foot [25 meters] should have been less than 10 inches [25 centimeters], but not until no less than NASA had started publicizing the higher number)

 

Yet the money pours in, and every graduate student in search of funding knows to add one simple phrase that will make it rain money: The effects of Global Climate Change on ________________ just fill in the blank.

 

And here is the funniest part of all, that almost no one knows: Even if fully implemented, at a cost of trillions of dollars and millions of human lives, the Kyoto Protocol would have only lowered the temperature by 1/2 of 1 degree.

 

Surely even the most brainwashed out there must have noted that the whole AGW thing is losing steam. Anyone care to defend Y2K, SARS, Bird Flu, Avian Flu, Mexican Swine Flu, and the other end of the world as we know it hysteria?

 

SUV, were you even born when Global Cooling was on the cover of Time Magazine (a pretty big thing back in 1975)? You might want to read a few books from the time, like The Late Great Planet Earth. You might just discover that this stuff has been going on a lot longer than you think.

[mustang_sallad]

The physics people look at the physics and say that the idea that heat travels toward heat defies physics.

 

Please be more specific on this point. I don't see how increased CO2 in the atmosphere trapping more of the incident solar energy involves heat traveling from a cold temperature region to a hot temperature region.

[goinbroke2]

Suv, I know Time magazine is just a tiny circulated, little partisan book put out by......

 

Anyway, here's some articles from them. Not that they are the end all or be all, but your contention that global cooling was never widely accepted is a little off. The fact that we didn't go through this climate change hysteria in the 70's only means it never caught on like now. The same ones where pushing it and predicting doomsday scenario's "by the year 2000" which was a long ways off and sounded "mysterious/scary" like Hal and all the other sci-fi stuff that was booming at the time.

 

The original article;

(change cold for hot and presto you have the latest crisis!)

http://www.nationalcenter.org/Time-Ice-Age-06-24-1974-Sm.jpg

 

How about Newsweek? Are they big enough for you to give you an idea of the shit that was being spewing in 1976, a year after the time article?

 

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.[i](ONLY 10 YEARS!! ACT NOW!! )[/i] The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

 

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

 

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

 

 

Oh look! The weather will get worse and kill us all because of the cold.....ohh, that didn't work...ok. the weather will get worse and kill us all because of heating....crap..now it's getting colder again...ummm....I know! The weather will get worse because it's CHANGING! Yeah that's it!

 

The thing to remember is, "Climate change" in itself is true and is happening. It always has and always will(if you believe there was an ice age/mini ice age etc)

MANMADE climate change is the bullshit part of it.

The fact that the earth warmed or cooled is fact. The fact that humans did it has NOT been proven. (unless you believe "it MUST be" is a true scientific theory)

 

"In June, 1974, Time Magazine unleashed a mountain of evidence to support what scientists - at the time - suspected was the onset of a coming ice age. Characterizing it's evidence as "telltale signs everywhere", the article went back three decades to summarize statistics and events which pointed towards global cooling.

 

Newsweek Magazine conducted it's own investigation about a year later, concluding that evidence supporting a coming ice age had "begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists (were) hard-pressed to keep up with it all."

Edited May 26, 2011 by goinbroke2

[goinbroke2]

And just for fun;

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ :shades:

 

Russians get involved and say the data they provided was misconscrued.

 

Nawwww, that's not cooking the books is it? Climategate was proved to be "taken out of context" not an outright lie, right?

 

Oh wait....it's a communist plot to hammer the west, right?

Edited May 26, 2011 by goinbroke2

[suv_guy_19]

It never gained wide scientific acceptance. There were many people already talking about AGW at that point, actually. Anyway, you haven't answered your own question; why would the scientists lie?

[suv_guy_19]

To be a climatologist, which is a field that did not even exist until recently, requires NOT knowing a lot of things in order to accept the theory of AGW.

 

That's right, you've managed to discover what virtually every scientist in any field even remotely connected to AGW has failed to - it's all a ruse perpetuated by a bunch of people ignoring facts.

 

This is why I don't post here anymore. Some of you guys are absolutely beyond belief.

[goinbroke2]

It never gained wide scientific acceptance. There were many people already talking about AGW at that point, actually. Anyway, you haven't answered your own question; why would the scientists lie?

 

First it wasn't my question it was hers and the answer is obvious to everybody but the kool aid drinkers.

 

How about, "the earth must be flat, why would they lie"? Then ask me to answer the question?

 

 

"This is why I don't post here anymore" REALLY? :shades: ummmm...you POSTED that!

 

In 20 years some (like me) will look back and laugh at the crap they almost pulled over the general public's collective eye. Other's (young people who refuse to believe history or produce revisionist history) will eat this same crap spewed again and line the pockets of the "scientist's/climatologist's/cold weather specialist's/earth based science doctorate" or whatever else they come up with to call themselves.

 

The good news is Suv, you'll be 20 years older and a lot more wiser. You'll be able to look back and see the scam for what it is. Don't bother looking me up to admit I and other's on here were right, just feel good knowing you've been enlightened from the experiences of life. :happy feet: