ONCE AGAIN,GLOBAL WARMING REARS ITS UGLY HEAD

[longhair]

First, who says I don't know how correct I am. Second, anyone who comes on dissing science because of some over zealous scientists does not fully understand his degree(s). I have never claimed any scientist had the irrefutable facts on what is happening climatologically. What I have said is most people posturing on this topic have no understanding of the science. People will always misconstrue their understanding of the "facts". The primary problem with science, as with anything, is the people problem. The very minute someone becomes involved in anything, it gets skewed. This is most evident in politics, but is also found in any and all endevors, science included. So when someone says, I am an expert in such and such, I immediately see red flags waving and begin wondering what his agenda may be.

 

[A10]

First, who says I don't know how correct I am. Second, anyone who comes on dissing science because of some over zealous scientists does not fully understand his degree(s). I have never claimed any scientist had the irrefutable facts on what is happening climatologically. What I have said is most people posturing on this topic have no understanding of the science. People will always misconstrue their understanding of the "facts". The primary problem with science, as with anything, is the people problem. The very minute someone becomes involved in anything, it gets skewed. This is most evident in politics, but is also found in any and all endevors, science included. So when someone says, I am an expert in such and such, I immediately see red flags waving and begin wondering what his agenda may be.

Religion rears it's head I think. Science is best interpreted by scientists. When zealots have their beliefs challenged they tend to scream "Heretic". The issue with true science is, it must always be questioned, tested, and re-evaluated. The challenge is to keep an open mind.

 

[roscoguy]

First, I am a no-kidding, graduate degree atmospheric physicist, so I almost never post in these threads.
WHY? Because human-caused climate change is junk science, but it is also part of the new-age religion. Facts don't matter, only political correctness.
Some of my associates are grant-whores who will "study" anything if enough money is offered, and chase the latest fad. No matter if their reports are so ambiguous that they don't really prove anything, like the advocate post above who referred to the Greenland ice core studies correlating temperature and carbon dioxide, but left out the greatest effect was thousands of years ago when man's carbon dioxide contribution was mostly farts and campfires.
Never mind that 3 professional state climatologists have been fired for releasing actual data because it did not support the governor's political agenda in OR, NC, and VA.
Never mind that England's leading "climate professor" is disgraced internationally for creating false climate records to please his political masters. Yes, you heard right, when the facts don't support the political agenda, they make up new facts. Numerous articles published and widely repeated have "corrected" data put in place of real data, like the well-known "corrections" to NY Central Park Records, because the old temperatures should have been colder. That's right, they knocked several degrees off the 19th century temp records taken with actual mercury thermometers.

So don't waste your time presenting facts to the true believers.
They know humans are in control of the climate.
Never mind that after the last ice age the sea level rose 200 feet in the 11,000 years before humans built the first town, because sea level has risen 2 feet since we started burning coal, so to them that proves man is causing the earth to warm and the sea to rise.

It's not science, it's politics and political power.

In my own case, I have never said that man causes global warming. If I am an advocate of anything, it is only of combining science and common sense. There still seems to be a scientific consensus that the world is warming, despite falsified or misleading data from "grant-whores" or other politically-motivated sources.

If I left out that "greatest effect was thousands of years ago", it certainly was NOT because I preferred to hide this fact, it was because that it was unimportant to what I was saying then & now. Who cares what caused global warming thousands of years ago? There certainly weren't 7 billion people farting & lighting campfires. The effects of global warming could cause devastation orders of magnitude above previous (possibly cyclical) events simply because there are orders of magnitude more humans to be effected.

Similarly, who cares how high the sea level rose 11,000 years ago when the entire human (humanoid?) population could pack up their skins & move to higher ground. That would hardly work in today's world, when millions would be displaced or killed from a 2-foot rise in ocean levels.

If you have the scientific facts to prove that the world's average temperature is not rising, then you should definitely publish. Then any supposed scientific consensus would surely crumble. I don't blame people for their doubts, especially when reports have been shown to be falsified in the past. But, all I've tried to say is this: IF the temperature is rising AND greenhouse gasses are contributors AND the temperature rise is a bad thing or causes bad things such as more extreme weather conditions, be it drought, flood or wind storms of any flavor, then WHY would we not want to reduce our impact, especially if it could be done in a way that does not cause economic catastrophe?

 

[Wyatt Burp]

The fanatics out here have gone crazy when it comes to this stuff. Do you folks have auto "Smog Checks" like we have here every other year, or is that just a Cubafornia thing? Here's some other things that have been banned, proposed to ban, or what we're told to do:

Don't use fireplaces (might be for certain days not related to fire threats outside, just "air control").
Don't use gas powered leaf blowers.
Don't use Webber type B-B-Q or any where you burn charcoal.
Must use curly fry lightbulbs.
Don't use gas powered mowers.

This stuff doesn't mean much to me because I ignore these rules anyway, but it just shows how crazy the paranoid "air huggers" can get. It's a little chilly outside. I think I'll go out and aim my gas powered leafblower at the sky and burn a whole in the ozone to warm things up.

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The fanatics out here have gone crazy when it comes to this stuff. Do you folks have auto "Smog Checks" like we have here every other year, or is that just a Cubafornia thing?

Here in Hamilton County TN we have smog "emissions" checks every year. This started a few years ago. Have to pay $10 for the test and get a pass before the registration can be renewed.

When I lived in Walnut Creek, CA in the 1970's there were no regular yearly emissions tests, but cops would randomly set up roadside checks and stop folks driving by. This was about the time that catalytic converters were first being used that smelled like rotten eggs.

As far as California air pollution I will say this.... Back in the 1970's when I would go out to the car each morning the dew would be filled with black crud all over the car. When I now go back to visit family that's no longer the case. Whatever has been done over the past decades seems to have greatly reduced the amount of airborn particulates (not to be confused with C02/GW). That's one of the first things I noticed when I moved to the South over 30 years ago... that my car didn't get dirty just sitting in the driveway like it did in California.

 

[A10]

We have come a long way in fighting genuine pollution, and there is a place for regulations and regulators. I like having cleaner air than we had in the 60's. These regulations were put in place from public demand, not from debateable science. And as much as I love 60's muscle cars (have owned and driven many), have you driven behind one lately? I swear you can smell the gas pouring out through the tailpipes.

 

[snowman]

And as much as I love 60's muscle cars (have owned and driven many), have you driven behind one lately? I swear you can smell the gas pouring out through the tailpipes.

Couldn't an adjustment or two fix that? I remember those cars, and the only smell I remember coming from them was burning rubber. . .

Andy

 

[Maximumbob54]

While I love the above post, I don't need a fancy degree to look at charts that record solar radiation output from the sun just happen to match up an awful lot with our records for temperature change. And then there are the little things like how volcanic eruptions put out more crud than man has several times over. And then there is the decay of vegetation that puts out a bunch more. We are still pretty much the equivalent of a fart when it comes to real climate change. But some people don't listen or won't learn since it's too easy to be told and just fall in line.

 

[Onomea]

If you have the scientific facts to prove that the world's average temperature is not rising, then you should definitely publish....

Check out first link in post #50 above for a scientist who believes the fact is, the empirical evidence is, that there has been no rise in global temperature for the last decade.

The second link makes the case that even granting that the global warming is occuring, the remedies proposed are, for the world economy, like putting a tourniquet on your neck to stop a nose bleed...

 

[roscoguy]

Check out first link in post #50 above for a scientist who believes the fact is, the empirical evidence is, that there has been no rise in global temperature for the last decade.

The second link makes the case that even granting that the global warming is occuring, the remedies proposed are, for the world economy, like putting a tourniquet on your neck to stop a nose bleed...

Some very interesting reading, leading to interesting follow-up reading. There seems to be much room for doubt as to the weather-related claims, at least. I don't have the time or scientific background to deal with all of it & actually have no idea just how much scientific support either side of this part of the issue has. I'll definitely try to keep an open mind, for my part.
I really don't get the claims of economic disaster though. OK, so California has gone crazy with regulations, but they do that over everything. Just how does trying to decrease pollution negatively effect the US economy?

Hey, I'm willing to learn...