PDA

View Full Version : Another ship stuck trying to prove lies...


PIPSTER
07/22/2016, 07:59 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

:headwalls::debi::headwally::hammer::crazy1:

Reality can be hard and cold sometimes. :strange:

SeaCucumberFan
07/22/2016, 08:56 AM
Irony man

jayball
07/22/2016, 09:00 AM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/20/global-warming-expedition-stopped-in-its-tracks-by-arctic-sea-ice/

:headwalls::debi::headwally::hammer::crazy1:

Reality can be hard and cold sometimes. :strange:

You are definitely right, there is still ice. I always get my scientific analysis from the daily caller, a well-respected publication.

"Move along people, nothing to see here."

PIPSTER
07/22/2016, 09:38 AM
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v535/n7612/full/535358a.html

:dance:

sde1500
07/22/2016, 02:07 PM
I'm not going to get into the debate, but can't really deny that is incredibly ironic.

Alexraptor
07/22/2016, 06:36 PM
June here in Sweden has been the coldest I can remember.

Global Warming/Climate change is a gross oversimplification of what is actually going on in the world IMHO.

ThRoewer
07/22/2016, 11:11 PM
That a ship gets stuck in ice does only proof that the captain didn't do his homework and studied the weather forecast well.
Climate change is a gradual shift of the average temperatures. There will still be cold winters somewhere, but that doesn't mean the average isn't slowly going up.

The global glaciers are shrinking away quickly and the ocean levels are rising - that's a fact you can check with your own eyes.

I suggest to read some impartial studies instead of reading pseudo scientific studies and listening to political propaganda outlets that are all bought and paid for by the people who don't want to loose their source of income: oil and gas.

And even if the data are not 100% conclusive, it's better to err on the side of caution than create a situation you won't be able to rectify once you have the proof.
We only have this one planet and if we screw it up we have nowhere else to go.

droth335
07/23/2016, 07:13 AM
^ well said.

PIPSTER
07/23/2016, 08:40 AM
That a ship gets stuck in ice does only proof that the captain didn't do his homework and studied the weather forecast well.
:deadhorse:
Many resources could have been used probably before this voyage even started that would have shown the way is always blocked, always has been, always will be. Satellite images would have been a common sense start.


The rest of what you have to say is as much a denial of reality as that "captain" and whoever else was on that ship:
Climate change is a gradual shift of the average temperatures. There will still be cold winters somewhere, but that doesn't mean the average isn't slowly going up.

The global glaciers are shrinking away quickly and the ocean levels are rising - that's a fact you can check with your own eyes.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

I suggest to read some impartial studies instead of reading pseudo scientific studies and listening to political propaganda outlets that are all bought and paid for by the people who don't want to loose their source of income: oil and gas.

And even if the data are not 100% conclusive, it's better to err on the side of caution than create a situation you won't be able to rectify once you have the proof.
We only have this one planet and if we screw it up we have nowhere else to go.

:spin2:
There's the NASA link about the Antarctic, and this silly boat story is near the other polar area of the world. It's not localized, the entire "Northeast Passage" is iced in...in the summer. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Amazing how many people are delusional and readily accept such lies.
:headwally::hmm3:

SeaCucumberFan
07/23/2016, 09:07 AM
You dont believe in global warming and climate change?

jayball
07/23/2016, 09:10 AM
There is also no measurable difference in co2 saturation and average temp of the ocean either right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dmorty217
07/23/2016, 09:20 AM
You dont believe in global warming and climate change?

Everyone does to a certain degree but no one believes that this is a result of the earth since the industrial revolution began... unless your trying to sell others "carbon credits"

I mean I can guarantee you and everyone in your family is still driving a car and adding to the local landfill each week

SeaCucumberFan
07/23/2016, 10:33 PM
It was cold here (at the foot of mount merapi) 10 years ago, but now it's so hot... so hot that it made a famous restaurant go out of bussiness

ThRoewer
07/24/2016, 03:35 AM
Well, I don't have kids so I don't really care. I also trust in nature's resilience to recover after the crash - it did survive greater catastrophes in the past and something always survives for evolution to start over. Maybe next time evolution manages to come up with a truly intelligent lifeform - it looks like it came up empty so far ...

Mankind is going to go the way of the dodo with this kind of ignorance and self-delusion. It seems cutting school funding and constant indoctrination has worked well. Idiocracy here we come!

I'm not the delusional here. I don't need studies or pre-digested opinion pieces from either side to realize that the way we currently burn through the planet's resources will lead to no good end.

Simple facts and logic (and the laws of thermodynamic) will get you there: there are simply too many of us who all want to live the good life! That's never going to happen, not with socialism, capitalism or any other "ism".
The planet is a closed system and it's currently heavily overstocked.

If you don't believe there is anything wrong with our current way than ditch the water changes and add more fish to your tank - it will all be fine. Nitrates, Phosphates and all the other supposedly bad things are just inventions of clever businessmen to make you buy their products... if it gets too full, just add some oil :debi:

Cutting carbon emissions will do little to get sustainable. Nuclear is in a way the most environmentally friendly energy - if there wasn't that pesky radioactive waste to get rid off. Water energy is as disruptive to nature as coal or gas, and wind and wave power generation will also prove to have some negative sides to the environment - there is simply no way to beat entropy.

Electric cars are just a way to appease yourself as the energy and resource equations still come up negative. The same is also still true for solar cells.

The only way would be to live a simpler life: ditch the car and use the bicycle or walk - it's healthier as well. Use daylight instead of lamps (a special idiocy around here in CA were there is plenty of free light available).

But you know what? I'm too lazy to walk and like my comfort and having a lot of energy guzzling reef tanks. There you have it!

Be honest and say you don't care and don't want to make sacrifices (nobody else does, so why you?), but don't hide behind made up studies and self comforting delusions as excuses.
Earth and mankind as we know them are doomed - so let's go on with the party and have fun as long as it lasts...:beer::celeb1:

cougareyes
07/24/2016, 10:01 AM
The foundation of global warming belief is rising co2 levels. Scientific fact that co2 chases temp not the other way around as the green gang preach. Now 3 government labs have been shut done for falsifying records concerning climate change, why lie? Check the Vostok ice core sample study where there has been higher c02 many times in history than today, many times before the industrial revolution. Alternative energy companies going bankrupt with our tax dollars, carbon taxes, hypocrisy. One of the famous big mouth spokes person used electrical energy in one month in one of his houses equal to what I use in a year and a half. Al Gore has gotten rich as ...., I am very conservative, pollute and produce garbage as little as I can, but this is a scam. Methods of measurements now that have an accuracy of .01 comparing to reading on instruments with an accuracy of 2, there are so many indicators that this is bunk, that's not even in the range of error that they report is the difference.

kevin_e
07/24/2016, 12:41 PM
It really doesn't matter who or what the cause of global warming and climate change is. The issues that it is/will cause will be detrimental to societies and our way of life; that's why it is a concern to people.

I really don't care whether it's anthropogenic related or not. Pointing fingers and directing blame does not solve the issues at hand. Those issues include sea level rise (detrimental to coastal cities), oceanic acidification (detrimental to oceanic resources), and unstable weather patterns (also detrimental to our food and water supply). The biggest potential issue is the shutdown our the global circulation system from the increase of fresh water in the polar regions from ice melt; this would have devastating effects on global climate, which would devastate economies around the world.

These issues will lead to more poverty, further food supply issues, water scarcity and war.

kevin_e
07/24/2016, 12:42 PM
The foundation of global warming belief is rising co2 levels. Scientific fact that co2 chases temp not the other way around as the green gang preach. Now 3 government labs have been shut done for falsifying records concerning climate change, why lie? Check the Vostok ice core sample study where there has been higher c02 many times in history than today, many times before the industrial revolution. Alternative energy companies going bankrupt with our tax dollars, carbon taxes, hypocrisy. One of the famous big mouth spokes person used electrical energy in one month in one of his houses equal to what I use in a year and a half. Al Gore has gotten rich as ...., I am very conservative, pollute and produce garbage as little as I can, but this is a scam. Methods of measurements now that have an accuracy of .01 comparing to reading on instruments with an accuracy of 2, there are so many indicators that this is bunk, that's not even in the range of error that they report is the difference.


"This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns."

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
•The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
•This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
•The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.


"While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots)."

kevin_e
07/24/2016, 12:56 PM
:deadhorse:
Many resources could have been used probably before this voyage even started that would have shown the way is always blocked, always has been, always will be. Satellite images would have been a common sense start.


The rest of what you have to say is as much a denial of reality as that "captain" and whoever else was on that ship:


:spin2:
There's the NASA link about the Antarctic, and this silly boat story is near the other polar area of the world. It's not localized, the entire "Northeast Passage" is iced in...in the summer. This isn't the first time this has happened.

Amazing how many people are delusional and readily accept such lies.
:headwally::hmm3:

What you are discussing is "weather", not "climate". You may have years that produce anomalies, but overall, sea ice coverage in summer months has drastically reduced and has been reducing, more or less, year to year.

The same can be said with ocean temperatures and terrestrial temperatures. It wasn't but a couple of years ago that the US had one of the colder winters it has had in the recent past, but yet, the average global temperature continued to rise, as does the trend of hottest years on record. 14 of the 16 hottest years on record have occurred since 2000.

What you may be seeing in the arctic THIS YEAR may be associated with the Southern-Oscillation (El Nino/ La Nina), which is not well understood.

I'm not really sure what you believe the NASA link proved. 2014 was still the hottest year on record and the arctic was at one of its lowest ice coverage in recorded history. The very article clearly stated that with climate change, not every place on earth will react the same way. Some places will, cool and others will warm. In some scenarios, conditions may be right to produce what we saw in the Antarctic in 2014. But overall the trend is towards additional ice coverage and a cooler climate. Furthermore, ice volume within the Antarctic is likely shrinking (i.e thinner ice): "Melting ice on the edges of the Antarctic continent could be leading to more fresh, just-above-freezing water, which makes refreezing into sea ice easier". This means ice is meting from underneath the ice sheets and refreezing further out along the edges. Ice may be expanding in area, but may not be in volume.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nasa-says-2016-hottest-record-so-far-arctic-sea-ice-cover-may-reach-new-lows-2393025

cougareyes
07/24/2016, 01:20 PM
What we do definitely affects our environment, we see that plainly in the artificial environments in which we create. The extent of the green army propaganda is based more in fraudulent data and computer models than fact. The earth is ever changing and there is no way you could come to any conclusions from collected data for a few decades, compared to an earth millions of years old. I find this subject to be more political and greed motivated than concern for environment.

HippieSmell
07/24/2016, 02:07 PM
The fact that climate change is even debated in the US is more a commentary on our education system and the existence of systemic propaganda than the state of climate science.

Reel North
07/24/2016, 03:57 PM
When the government begins reaching into my pocket, and hires guys to fly around on 747 to preach at me, I start to tune it out. I try to pollute the least I can, grow some food, and minimize my personal footprint on the planet.

When world leaders preach about climate change, and blather on about taxes, and fees, and carbon credits, you know someone is getting rich and it isn't you.

The UN climate people have clearly said that this is about redistribution of wealth, and has nothing to do with climate science.

When the largest polluters get a 20 year free pass to continue to build coal plants, and rape and pillage their lands and pollute as much as they want in the name of "fairness", how serious is this problem really.

If we are destroying the planet at the rate they tell us we are, then why not clamp down hard on India, China, Russia etc etc?

Answer that one, simple question. Why are they giving the largest polluters on earth a free pass......

Reef Frog
07/24/2016, 04:38 PM
Sea level rise is real.

Ocean acidification is real and the link to CO2 is real and proven. As reefers, we fully understand what that does to a coral reef. We all know what elevated CO2 in out tanks do to pH.

It is hotter globally then it has been 200, 100, 50 years ago. Fact.

WHERE THINGS COMPLICATED:
Sophisticated climate modeling requires super computers, incredibly sophisticated software, many millenia of data which we don't have and a huge array of observation technologies. All of these things are really only in their infancy.

But enormous human hubris on the part of many says we've got it all figured out now...and CO2 is fully to blame...end of story...doubters shut your pie holes dang it! Heck science can't decide if coffee is good or bad for us. CO2 may very well be the main or a major driver but we unlikely have all the data there is on the subject, and maybe we never will. An open and skeptical mind must be maintained before you let our dysfunctional government go wild on the issue. So much is unknown. During the Middle Ages a mini ice age has occurred. We know the ice age reached its peak 12,000 years ago and it's been getting warmer ever since. We barely understand ocean currents, their histories and how they change. Astrological causes are often not factored in properly. There's a lot more to learn.

I'm working from memory here. But the USA has done a fantastic job in reducing overall energy use AND CO2 emissions during the last 25 years. Our CO2 emissions are now at a 1993 level. But our economic output has doubled or tripled and we've added somewhere around 40 million additional people to the population, at least the ones we can count.

That's fantastic and we should give ourselves credit for that. You rarely hear about it in the news media or political circles. Using less energy benefits the consumer, businesses (except big oil), national security, and the environment. Many really rotten countries have lots of oil and I'm OK with their corrupt rulers get a nice haircut.

The planet is indeed over populated and overall population seems to be accelerating with no end in sight. This is likely to lead to all kinds of unsolvable problems. This is just an opinion of course. But the developing world is going to develop no matter what - and they'll undoubtably do it inefficiently and with precious little regard for environment issues much less CO2 control.

So keep an open mind, but in the end....yea we're probably screwed in the long term. We'll know more in a 100 years or so but in the mean time hope for the best!

skanderson
07/24/2016, 05:14 PM
you forgot to mention that it is cooler than it was 1000 years ago. funny how that always gets left off the list.

Alexraptor
07/24/2016, 09:57 PM
I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

HippieSmell
07/24/2016, 10:31 PM
you forgot to mention that it is cooler than it was 1000 years ago. funny how that always gets left off the list.

It wasn't warmer 1000 years ago. I'm not trying to be terse or flippant, but it wasn't globally warmer. There was a warming period, but we've surpassed it.

alton
07/25/2016, 06:45 AM
I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

You need to come to Texas or California. Texas alone has grown by 2 million people in 4 years. Maybe if we raised our taxes the newcomers would go back home?

CHSUB
07/25/2016, 02:22 PM
it's so hot today in Miami you could fry a egg on the street.....must be global warming!!!!:D

Reef Frog
07/25/2016, 05:01 PM
I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

Well, we will know more in a few hundred years!

The problems with these theories are:

-Greed is part of the human condition. It's hard baked into the human animal. And it always will be.

-Properly managed. Ok. That seems possible in theory perhaps. What does that really mean? A mandate from a government bureaucracy managing the details of living for 30 billion people in 2150? Humanity seems awfully poor at managing large scale things beyond short term goals. How would that change?

How would that be done? We know all natural ecosystems have a maximum carrying carrying capacity. Eventually any group of technical miracles that support an extreme population is likely to falter or fail at some point with disastrous results. Just opinion. Hard to impossible to know for sure.

lokmar
07/28/2016, 05:32 PM
The man made warming hoaxologists have been making up the data and silencing dissenters for 2 decades now. Anytime the lies are revealed, they get ignored and covered by new lies. All of this is to further the cause of separating us from our money. To that end, these people are now talking about making the denial of the global warming hoax a crime. Businesses will be bullied via gov. regulations into getting on the bandwagon. Anytime a continent has record cold, its ignored, and anytime Arizona has 120 deg. temps, its paraded around as proof positive that we're all gonna die. BTW, their hoaxologist forefathers swore that the earth was gonna be in another ice age back in the 70's. They themselves said we had just a few years before disaster back in the early 2000's. They lie....still.

HippieSmell
07/28/2016, 05:54 PM
The man made warming hoaxologists have been making up the data and silencing dissenters for 2 decades now. Anytime the lies are revealed, they get ignored and covered by new lies. All of this is to further the cause of separating us from our money. To that end, these people are now talking about making the denial of the global warming hoax a crime. Businesses will be bullied via gov. regulations into getting on the bandwagon. Anytime a continent has record cold, its ignored, and anytime Arizona has 120 deg. temps, its paraded around as proof positive that we're all gonna die. BTW, their hoaxologist forefathers swore that the earth was gonna be in another ice age back in the 70's. They themselves said we had just a few years before disaster back in the early 2000's. They lie....still.
Literally nothing you just said is completely true. In fact, most is totally false.

Potatohead
07/28/2016, 05:56 PM
Literally nothing you just said is completely true. In fact, most is totally false.

Can't tell that to a crazy person

alton
07/29/2016, 09:55 AM
Actually you have to go back to four decades of contraversy
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
And look at all the references
Global Freezing
Global Warming
Global Climate Change
Not sure about what it will be called next?
We all know as you add more people you add more of everything
Since the ice age the earth has been warming.
Remember Exxon Valdize
Green Peace and how they got boats that ran off of Fuel oil to circle other tankers to protest oil transportation?
The biggest issue with claiming global warming is the spokes people that have been chosen are "Do as I say, not as I do!
http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

ThRoewer
07/29/2016, 12:57 PM
I call total BS on the notion that the planet is over populated.
Our planet would be more than capable of sustaining us several times over if it and it's resources were properly managed and if people just weren't so damn greedy.

Well, I think you have to get outside of the thinly populated Sweden once in a while to see what high population density looks like. :debi:
I suggest India, China, Japan, or a visit to Tokyo or Mexico City, and then let's talk again.
The city of Tokyo alone has already 1.4 times the population of all of Sweden.
If you count the entire Tokyo-Yokohama region it's 4 times. And that is just one city complex.

If you want to live like an ant in an anthill, eat just as much cardboard tasting dry-food as needed to sustain you, drink water that was reclaimed from your excrement, and live in concentration camp style barracks with no privacy or personal space, you may be able to add a few more billions.
Oh, and hope you have a stuffy nose as there will be no water to waste for washing.
I suggest to watch Soylent Green to get a rather positive prediction of how it may look like.

If you want to live in a decent house, eat nice and healthy meals, drive a car, have an intact environment and have all the other amenities we so got accustomed to, then one billion is already stretching the planet's resources.

When I was born there were about 3.5 billion humans on this planet.
Now, 50 years later there are 7.4 billion, more than twice as much. And the projections predict 8.5 billion by 2030.

Well, the good news is that nature is very good at finding countermeasures, and Human greed and stupidity is likely going to help along tremendously.

Sometimes I wish I could live long enough a give you a "told you so" when the sh** hits the fan, but it may be better to kick the bucket before it all goes south :beer:

ThRoewer
07/29/2016, 02:03 PM
... Since the ice age the earth has been warming. ...

Well, we are actually in a warm period between two ice-ages.

It's not the warming on itself that is alarming, but the rate at which it occurs. And the acceleration of warming in the last century is clearly coincident in timing and rate to human activity. It really doesn't matter if it is CO2, deforestation, pollution or just simply overpopulation - it clearly points to human activity as the cause.

Also, the rapidly warming climate will not simply cause the temperatures to raise, but could actually bring on the next ice age sooner by disrupting the oceanic heat transport.

Whatever the outcome for nature will be, it will be most detrimental to human societies.

Bent
08/01/2016, 01:54 PM
I have to throw into this discussion.

This argument drives me a little nuts, at least in the "real world". Its a little different discussing it here, I tend to think the community here has a little more sense and education than most of the rest of the population.

In my opinion, I have no problem being a good custodian and a responsible human being, cleaning up after myself and such. But heres my issue with this and other arguments. You cant win and your always up against some kind of critical response from some fringe groups.

Case and point.

I hunt for much of our meat at home and we don't get a lot of grocery store meat. This leads to a need for conservation, responsible gun ownership, butchering skills, decreasing your environmental impact by not giving money to large meat companies, etc. Then you try to have a discussion about these things with fringe lunatics and people call you insensitive, cruel, etc.

Then you tell people that you store drinking water, stock up food for emergencies, and your suddenly a "prepper" looney toon.

You oppose gun laws and people say "why do you need guns! Leave the policing to the police!" Then you tell them you support the police, then they say "screw the police, they abuse their power and are racist scum!"


Anyway, my point is that its very difficult these days to be a normal person with common sense. I don't want to crap on the environment any more than I want to dump trash in my living room and not clean it up, but at the same time I don't think making a bunch of legislation that will kill peoples jobs and put more people in poverty is the best answer either.

Im not denying a shift in climate, nor am I going to sit here and say that I have no impact on the environment when I could easily over hunt my property to the point that Ill never be able to harvest meat off of it again. I could dump trash in my garden and not be able to harvest anything again.

I don't know when everything became so polarized and it frustrates me to no end.

sde1500
08/01/2016, 02:03 PM
I have to throw into this discussion.

This argument drives me a little nuts, at least in the "real world". Its a little different discussing it here, I tend to think the community here has a little more sense and education than most of the rest of the population.

In my opinion, I have no problem being a good custodian and a responsible human being, cleaning up after myself and such. But heres my issue with this and other arguments. You cant win and your always up against some kind of critical response from some fringe groups.

Case and point.

I hunt for much of our meat at home and we don't get a lot of grocery store meat. This leads to a need for conservation, responsible gun ownership, butchering skills, decreasing your environmental impact by not giving money to large meat companies, etc. Then you try to have a discussion about these things with fringe lunatics and people call you insensitive, cruel, etc.

Then you tell people that you store drinking water, stock up food for emergencies, and your suddenly a "prepper" looney toon.

You oppose gun laws and people say "why do you need guns! Leave the policing to the police!" Then you tell them you support the police, then they say "screw the police, they abuse their power and are racist scum!"


Anyway, my point is that its very difficult these days to be a normal person with common sense. I don't want to crap on the environment any more than I want to dump trash in my living room and not clean it up, but at the same time I don't think making a bunch of legislation that will kill peoples jobs and put more people in poverty is the best answer either.

Im not denying a shift in climate, nor am I going to sit here and say that I have no impact on the environment when I could easily over hunt my property to the point that Ill never be able to harvest meat off of it again. I could dump trash in my garden and not be able to harvest anything again.

I don't know when everything became so polarized and it frustrates me to no end.

I'd agree with you but I don't want to be associated with some gun toting, animal killing, disaster prepping nut case. :clown:

Butch01
08/01/2016, 03:06 PM
Everyone does to a certain degree but no one believes that this is a result of the earth since the industrial revolution began... unless your trying to sell others "carbon credits"

If your non-sentence means what it appears to mean, please don't presume to speak others on this. Man's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years or so is directly responsible for the current incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and the myriad other downstream effects we're starting to see.

I do science for a living, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* happening. I'm just not willing to bet that you're smarter or better informed than the 99.9+% of the world's climate and other physical scientists who have proven that it's manmade. Maybe when you're starving because we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and NYC, Miami, and LA are under water you'll believe it.

And for the record, weather and climate are not the same thing. A snowstorm in June doesn't mean that runaway global climate change isn't real or isn't happening.

alton
08/01/2016, 03:41 PM
If your non-sentence means what it appears to mean, please don't presume to speak others on this. Man's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years or so is directly responsible for the current incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and the myriad other downstream effects we're starting to see.

I do science for a living, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* happening. I'm just not willing to bet that you're smarter or better informed than the 99.9+% of the world's climate and other physical scientists who have proven that it's manmade. Maybe when you're starving because we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and NYC, Miami, and LA are under water you'll believe it.

And for the record, weather and climate are not the same thing. A snowstorm in June doesn't mean that runaway global climate change isn't real or isn't happening.
Three questions
Listening to you it sounds like over population is causing our issues?
Since C02 is heavier than air how does it get in our atmosphere?
If C02 is so bad why is it a non regulated gas?

PIPSTER
08/01/2016, 03:46 PM
I do science for a living.

B.S.

:p

:hammer:

HippieSmell
08/01/2016, 04:12 PM
Three questions
Listening to you it sounds like over population is causing our issues?
Since C02 is heavier than air how does it get in our atmosphere?
If C02 is so bad why is it a non regulated gas?
Are these serious questions?

ThRoewer
08/01/2016, 04:14 PM
...
I don't know when everything became so polarized and it frustrates me to no end.

Amen to that.

When in doubt I would rather err on the side of caution as once the damage is done it can't be undone.
Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't harm the economy but rather creates new opportunities for new businesses (see Denmark's and Germany's wind power industries). It may harm some old businesses that refuse to adapt, but those may fail sooner or later anyway.
Life is all about change and those who refuse to adapt will sooner or later go the way of the dodo.

As for guns, I don't mind hunting rifles and pistols for the coup de grâce. Those are legal with a permit even in countries with strict gun control like Germany. Even pistols for defending your home are OK with me (though those are usually a greater threat to the owner and his/her family than a potential intruder).
What I find concerning are people who hoard arsenals of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like for "self protection" (true collectors excluded) - against whom they want to protect themselves?

ThRoewer
08/01/2016, 04:35 PM
Three questions
Listening to you it sounds like over population is causing our issues?
Since C02 is heavier than air how does it get in our atmosphere?
If C02 is so bad why is it a non regulated gas?

1. precisely! Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all human related/caused issues.

2. Atmospheric circulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation) (wind), Thermodynamic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics), kinetics of gases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases), Brownian motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion),... Gas molecules bounce around at crazy speeds at normal temperatures - that alone would do the mixing just fine.

3. regulation always lags. Also, it's the dosage that creates the danger, not the presence in general. And plant life needs a certain minimum of it to survive. It's about limiting preventable excess emissions - otherwise you would have to outlaw breathing altogether.

alton
08/01/2016, 08:57 PM
Are these serious questions?

Too many times people come on here and state there opinion, I just wish they would bring a few links with facts?

alton
08/01/2016, 09:07 PM
1. precisely! Overpopulation is the root cause of nearly all human related/caused issues.

2. Atmospheric circulation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_circulation) (wind), Thermodynamic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamics), kinetics of gases (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_theory_of_gases), Brownian motion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion),... Gas molecules bounce around at crazy speeds at normal temperatures - that alone would do the mixing just fine.

3. regulation always lags. Also, it's the dosage that creates the danger, not the presence in general. And plant life needs a certain minimum of it to survive. It's about limiting preventable excess emissions - otherwise you would have to outlaw breathing altogether.

Thanks do you have a link to a study that list the amount of CO2 that is not used up by plants and makes it into our atmosphere? Many electrical companies still use C02 to blow in jetlines. Our company alone uses 1,000's of pounds
I believe as humans we are doing a crappy job in protecting the earth! And the worst part our government leads the way in pollution.

ThRoewer
08/01/2016, 10:01 PM
The amount of CO2 plants (and corals) bind depends on the amount of plants (and corals) present.
An actually better way to see this may be the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. Since we are busy cutting down the rain forests on top of burning fossil fuels the atmospheric oxygen levels are dropping faster than the CO2 levels rise: about 4 ppm per year (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/oxygen/modern_records.html)

If your company actually uses CO2, it is likely just taken from the air by cooling and compression or more commonly as a byproduct of other industrial processes. I guess they use CO2 because it is cheaper than N2: http://www.cryobrain.com/nitrocarbon

ThRoewer
08/01/2016, 10:06 PM
BTW: burning fossil fuels like there is no tomorrow is quite stupid as they are very precious resources that are not easily replaced. Mankind is currently behaving like a poor sucker who won the lottery and then wastes it all away in no time.

Bent
08/01/2016, 10:12 PM
Amen to that.

When in doubt I would rather err on the side of caution as once the damage is done it can't be undone.
Cutting CO2 emissions doesn't harm the economy but rather creates new opportunities for new businesses (see Denmark's and Germany's wind power industries). It may harm some old businesses that refuse to adapt, but those may fail sooner or later anyway.
Life is all about change and those who refuse to adapt will sooner or later go the way of the dodo.

As for guns, I don't mind hunting rifles and pistols for the coup de grâce. Those are legal with a permit even in countries with strict gun control like Germany. Even pistols for defending your home are OK with me (though those are usually a greater threat to the owner and his/her family than a potential intruder).
What I find concerning are people who hoard arsenals of military grade assault rifles, machine guns and the like for "self protection" (true collectors excluded) - against whom they want to protect themselves?

Without getting all "gun nerd" on ya, I do find that I often have this discussion with non gun nerds and my next statement usually shocks them.

I don't support an "assault weapons" ban...but I would support a hand gun ban would one come up.

The reason is, If you go by the numbers, violent crimes are committed by handguns by a large, large margin. More people were actually killed by hammers in 2015 than by "assault rifles".

I keep putting assault rifle in quotes because what is sold to common people at gun shops are not assault rifles at all. They are merely semi-automatic rifles that look like their military counterparts. Calling an AR-15 and a M16 both assault rifles is like calling a Siberian husky and a Timber wolf both Wolves. Here is a cool concise read outlining the difference:
http://tribunist.com/news/when-you-hear-someone-call-an-ar-15-an-assault-rifle-show-them-this/

I'm also ok with high capacity mag bans. Plenty of research has shown that proper practice and training can enable someone to put Rounds down range just as fast with three, ten round magazines as someone untrained with a single 30 round magazine. I've done the drills multiple times and not only am I just as fast with the ten rounders, I'm actually more accurate. A properly trained person can unload and reload their rifle in less than a second.

Furthermore, I think we need to really up the ante with weapons violations punishments. Depending on the severity, I'd be ok with cutting someone's hands off. After all, you can't shoot a gun with no hands.

As for the "what are they protecting themselves from" question, the answer is "the government". The second amendment is the second amendment for a reason. It's that important, otherwise it would be the 12 or 13th. It's literally the second thing they thought of out of all the things they needed to cover. Without a way to encite fear into the government of the citizens being able to defend themselves adequately from oppression, the government has no reason not to exert control over their citizens. No, a rifle or handgun isn't going to stop a tank, but a few hundred of them will, and plenty of bigger weapons will be lying on the ground if something like this happens, but we have to have a way to get to that point first. Often the threat of force is enough to keep a balance. What did teddy Roosevelt say? "Speak softly and carry a big stick?" Take that stick away, and your leverage is gone. The second amendment is one of the reasons we have the freedoms we have today, not in spite of it. However, in contrast to that, I will say that buying a Swim cap and shaving you body doesn't make you Michael Phelps. You have to practice and log range time. Responsible gun ownership means not only keeping your weapons out of everyone's hands but your own at all times, but also ensuring you know what the heck your doing with it. That's my biggest beef with most of the gun owners in the country these days, most of them couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag and I'm supposed to be OK with these people carrying in public? No thanks.


Anyway, off my soapbox, and back on topic.

Yes, cutting co2 emissions does indeed harm the economy. Just look at the coal miners in WV that are currently unemployed for an example. These people need work. WV has a really terrible economy now directly due to the clean air act and legislation that has put people out of work. The less people that draw a paycheck, the less income tax the government collects. This state went from a massive tax surplus to a huge deficit in the last 8 years simply from legislation that has shut down coal mines and related businesses.

I'm totally fine with cleaner forms of energy, but These new resources and jobs need to be in place before you phase out the old ones. Otherwise you cut the governmental cash flow and put more people on government assistance. You can't just throw people in poverty like that and say "good luck" (Not you specifically, that's not what I mean).

So anyways, this reply became way more wordy than I intended. I'm all for being a good custodian of the environment, but we need to think about the human impact of this stuff first and the environmental impact second. Get people transitioned to these new jobs instead of pulling the rug out and telling them to wait for a new pie in the sky job opportunity that may or may not come in the next 5-10 years. In the same vein we also need to start make college education more affordable and stop the university extortion of the public, but that's a whole new topic.

Good talk guys!

Bent
08/01/2016, 10:26 PM
If your non-sentence means what it appears to mean, please don't presume to speak others on this. Man's pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere in the past 150 years or so is directly responsible for the current incredibly rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, and the myriad other downstream effects we're starting to see.

I do science for a living, and whether you choose to believe it or not, it *is* happening. I'm just not willing to bet that you're smarter or better informed than the 99.9+% of the world's climate and other physical scientists who have proven that it's manmade. Maybe when you're starving because we can't grow enough food to feed ourselves, and NYC, Miami, and LA are under water you'll believe it.

And for the record, weather and climate are not the same thing. A snowstorm in June doesn't mean that runaway global climate change isn't real or isn't happening.

If you do science for a living, and you are able to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that man made climate change exists and the rest of the scientific community can't, then you must have this published somewhere.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that it exists, and we should operate on that current research, I'm not trying to downplay it. But to sit here and say that it's "proven" is simply not true. It isn't, and hasn't been 100% proven to my knowledge, yet. :love1:

HippieSmell
08/01/2016, 10:55 PM
Thanks do you have a link to a study that list the amount of CO2 that is not used up by plants and makes it into our atmosphere? Many electrical companies still use C02 to blow in jetlines. Our company alone uses 1,000's of pounds
I believe as humans we are doing a crappy job in protecting the earth! And the worst part our government leads the way in pollution.
I don't have a link, but there are global carbon budget studies that show what systems absorb what. It isn't a debated topic, I assure you. The reason they can test where fossil emissions end up is because the carbon emmitted by the burning of fossil fuels is a different ratio of c12 to c13 than other sources.

HippieSmell
08/01/2016, 11:18 PM
Yes, cutting co2 emissions does indeed harm the economy. Just look at the coal miners in WV that are currently unemployed for an example. These people need work. WV has a really terrible economy now directly due to the clean air act and legislation that has put people out of work. The less people that draw a paycheck, the less income tax the government collects. This state went from a massive tax surplus to a huge deficit in the last 8 years simply from legislation that has shut down coal mines and related businesses.

I'm totally fine with cleaner forms of energy, but These new resources and jobs need to be in place before you phase out the old ones. Otherwise you cut the governmental cash flow and put more people on government assistance. You can't just throw people in poverty like that and say "good luck" (Not you specifically, that's not what I mean).

I feel bad for anyone that loses a job, but if mountain top coal mining is ended, I can't say that's a bad thing.

The problem with clean energy jobs is that fossil fuels are cheap. Either fossil fuels are made more expensive through regulation so that renewables can compete, or the government develops cheaper renewables through incentives or direct research. It's government regulation or government spending, both of which are antithesis to certain political groups.

ThRoewer
08/01/2016, 11:26 PM
...
Yes, cutting co2 emissions does indeed harm the economy. Just look at the coal miners in WV that are currently unemployed for an example. These people need work. WV has a really terrible economy now directly due to the clean air act and legislation that has put people out of work. The less people that draw a paycheck, the less income tax the government collects. This state went from a massive tax surplus to a huge deficit in the last 8 years simply from legislation that has shut down coal mines and related businesses. ...

Well, coal mining hasn't been a safe job since ships and trains were switched over to oil. It is largely a dying industry, in the developed world anyway, and it would still be even without cutting carbon emissions. Just look what happened to British and German mines - pretty much all closed for a long time, and not due to carbon emission reduction, but simply because of cost (safe mines can't compete with the way the dig it up in China) and because coal burning was too dirty and the demand went down when cleaner and more convenient alternatives became available.
Coal burning is dirty in so many ways that nobody wants it in their neighborhood if there are cleaner energies like natural gas.
Really, would you want to die young from coal smog and dust just so some people can hang on to their outdated jobs - I don't.

Also, any region that just bets on just one industry without having enough diversification will encounter such downturns. It's not just the laws of economics but also the laws of evolution.

Of course you could also go the British way where they had still stokers on diesel and electric trains long after the era of steam engines had ended - just so they had jobs (subsidized by the public of course).

ThRoewer
08/01/2016, 11:35 PM
...
The problem with clean energy jobs is that fossil fuels are cheap. ...

Actually, fossil fuels are not cheap if you take away subsidies, tax breaks and add in the damages done to the environment (excluding CO2) the taxpayer had to cover.
Once going, renewable energy sources can be competitive or even cheaper.

HippieSmell
08/01/2016, 11:53 PM
Actually, fossil fuels are not cheap if you take away subsidies, tax breaks and add in the damages done to the environment (excluding CO2) the taxpayer had to cover.
Once going, renewable energy sources can be competitive or even cheaper.
That isn't factored in for people at the pump, though. You are correct, however. Not to mention the cost associated with securing the free flow of fossil fuels around the globe. And the dollar peg.

ThRoewer
08/02/2016, 01:58 AM
That isn't factored in for people at the pump, though. You are correct, however. Not to mention the cost associated with securing the free flow of fossil fuels around the globe. And the dollar peg.

Yeah:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Top_ten_military_expenditures_in_US%24_Bn._in_2014%2C_according_to_the_International_Institute_for_S trategic_Studies.PNG

Remind me please who the US is at war with right now?

Not that I'm questioning the need to defend the country, but it seems it comes at a way too high bill. Half of that budget should be sufficient to keep all potential enemies at bay. To me it looks like someone is really sucking the US taxpayers dry (not necessarily the military itself but rather it's suppliers).

I guess Eisenhower was spot on with his warning about the military industrial complex:

"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.
"

If only half of that overblown military budget would be spend on education and other more pressing needs, the US and it's population would be in a much better shape.

alton
08/02/2016, 06:52 AM
Thanks for the info, and as for our military we have to stop policing the World and just worry about #1

alton
08/02/2016, 07:34 AM
Bent don't mess with my SR45! I love my deer sausage and hamburger along with shooting skeet and targets. Benefits of living in a rural area

Bent
08/02/2016, 12:10 PM
Bent don't mess with my SR45! I love my deer sausage and hamburger along with shooting skeet and targets. Benefits of living in a rural area

I don't intend to, or want to. I have about 10 handguns myself. I was just making a point.

But yes I also agree that it's time for the America to adopt the turtle technique.

Great civilized discussion guys!

CHSUB
08/02/2016, 12:23 PM
not that hot today in Miami, so maybe there is no global warming after all!!!!

HippieSmell
08/02/2016, 02:14 PM
But yes I also agree that it's time for the America to adopt the turtle technique.

Great civilized discussion guys!
I honestly don't think that's an option any more. The power vacuum would probably create more wars, as hard as that is to believe. I also think the dollar would collapse because of it. It's a globalized world and we either continue to lead and make it more globalized, or we pull back and watch it restructure, perhaps painfully.

ThRoewer
08/02/2016, 06:05 PM
...
But yes I also agree that it's time for the America to adopt the turtle technique.
...

HELL NO!!!!

The last time America did that it quite literally caused WWII.

This time there would likely be no recovery. China and Russia are just waiting for the US to give them an opening.

Putin want's to restore Russia to what the Soviet empire was in size and influence. An America that stops being watchful or supportive to its NATO allies is just what he hopes for - or why do you think Putin is trying to influence the US elections.

Same goes for China. As soon as the US would show weakness in East Asia they would start creating facts (they already started that with their island building). The next would likely be an annexation of Taiwan. And the Chinese also feel that they still have unfinished business with Japan.

The US withdrawing is really not an option as long as there is no higher authority could take over governing the world. It would need to be a new fully democratic UN without veto powers and an independent military. Though I don't think that is something to come anytime soon.

The issue with the US military budget is that the taxpayers not get what they pay for. The equipment costs are just ridiculously high and the effectiveness is rather questionable.

uwish
08/02/2016, 07:48 PM
I am just going to put this here, a video of a presentation done not to long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU&index=2&list=LLd9P3BK0ThwkcHLRRmpGxxg

I chose this particular lecture because he has found the very same anomalies in the government reports that I have found, and his plots from the source data look the same as mine (as they should, it's from the original data). Don't forget, in the late 70's and early 80's it was all the panic about global cooling and the new ice age. Funny how they shifted pretty quickly (relatively) speaking isn't it??

as a physicist, whether you believe in this climate issue or not, the complete and utter manipulation of the data is blatant and goes beyond unethical, because governments are making policy decisions based on, IMO junk science.

And for the record; yes the arctic ice is shrinking, but antarctic ice is growing alarmingly fast. Glaciers melting doesn't really impress me, they have been since the last ice age when they were deposited, nothing new there.

I won't get into the individual points that have been presented here on this forum, but I do ask you to LOOK at the data yourself, then ask yourself...why is it that only 'certain' data is used? I think it's because they are looking for confirmation bias, and they easily find it.

I could go on for hours, because I have pulled all the data, I have plotted it, and the conclusions being made are false, and it's a fraud. This is about taxation and wealth redistribution and has almost nothing to do with 'climate'.

And for Pete's sake, please STOP saying Climate Change, that is a tautology, climate is always changing by definition. There is allot of really shoddy stuff floating around out there, try to think and do some work yourself and don't just climb on the climate bandwagon.

Bent
08/02/2016, 07:53 PM
I honestly don't think that's an option any more. The power vacuum would probably create more wars, as hard as that is to believe. I also think the dollar would collapse because of it. It's a globalized world and we either continue to lead and make it more globalized, or we pull back and watch it restructure, perhaps painfully.

I'm totally ok with the world warring with itself. As for WW2, our departure from the world most definatley did not cause the entire thing. It had been going on for quite a while before we were attacked. The only reason we were attacked in the first place is because the Chinese and other "allies" failed to uphold their agreements and defend us (shocker) either on purpose to drag us into it to help them, or by negligence, that is up for debate. Germany's attempts in both ww1 and ww2 to dominate the world were none of our business, and most certainly neither is the Middle East anymore.

We are not part of the world community, we are used by it both fiscally and militarily, even more so now than in the past. I could quite literally give a crap about the rest of the worlds abilities to defend their own borders. We can't be their surrogate military, especially when these countries literally do squat for us these days.

Being involved in this crap world community literally has brought us nothing as a nation other than debt and death, I'm tired of loosing friends and loved ones to other people's problems and having to pay for it to boot.

In my opinion, we need to just totally pull out of the world and out of these international entanglements like the UN and NATO. Then let them all fend for themselves for a while and let the world restructure itself. The Middle East will never stop fighting, never. It's foolish to think they will, or that any intervention on our behalf will make a difference. The rest of the world doesn't spend any money on their military because they don't have to, we do all of their grunt work for them. As long as we are allied with them, we will have to keep burning through cash to keep our "stick" big enough to ward off attacks to not only ourselves, but the rest of these degenerate nations too.

Lots of things financially need to happen to disconnect our currency from the world market before that actually could happen, otherwise I do agree the dollar would likely tank. But given proper notice of our departure, and the slow disconnect from the world markets, I think our currency would not only be ok, but would end up stronger than ever.

Edit:

Just one rednecks opinion though.

HippieSmell
08/02/2016, 08:37 PM
I am just going to put this here, a video of a presentation done not to long ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh-DNNIUjKU&index=2&list=LLd9P3BK0ThwkcHLRRmpGxxg

I chose this particular lecture because he has found the very same anomalies in the government reports that I have found, and his plots from the source data look the same as mine (as they should, it's from the original data). Don't forget, in the late 70's and early 80's it was all the panic about global cooling and the new ice age. Funny how they shifted pretty quickly (relatively) speaking isn't it??

And for the record; yes the arctic ice is shrinking, but antarctic ice is growing alarmingly fast. Glaciers melting doesn't really impress me, they have been since the last ice age when they were deposited, nothing new there.

And for Pete's sake, please STOP saying Climate Change, that is a tautology, climate is always changing by definition. There is allot of really shoddy stuff floating around out there, try to think and do some work yourself and don't just climb on the climate bandwagon.
The global cooling scare was a small group of scientists, iirc. Global warming is much more universally accepted.

The antarctic ice sheet growth is explained by warmer waters bringing more moisture and dropping more snow. I believe the ice thickness is increasing, but not surface area.

Is human induced climate change better? It's just so much to say...

I didn't watch the video, but I might later. But, I'm not sure what qualifies an EE to upend accepted research in an unrelated field.

HippieSmell
08/02/2016, 08:59 PM
So, I did some quick reading on the guy in the video. He's basically saying the temperature data for the US is falsified, and this disproves AGW. His gripe is that the temperature data is adjusted, which is a completely valid technique and needed to get reliable and usable data. Nevermind the US is a very small amount of land, globally, and global temperatures are still rising. There are also other ways to measure warming, the most interesting to me is the shift in plant and animal range consistent with warming. Unless you believe plants and animals are in on the conspiracy.

uwish
08/02/2016, 09:15 PM
The global cooling scare was a small group of scientists, iirc. Global warming is much more universally accepted.

The antarctic ice sheet growth is explained by warmer waters bringing more moisture and dropping more snow. I believe the ice thickness is increasing, but not surface area.

Is human induced climate change better? It's just so much to say...

I didn't watch the video, but I might later. But, I'm not sure what qualifies an EE to upend accepted research in an unrelated field.


I think you should really look into the "97%" that the climate people keep spouting, I mean look at the source of where that data comes from. I think it will change your mind. There really is no consensus, science isn't a democracy. Remember we went from 'new ice age' to 'global warming' to 'climate change' primarily because the data, the real data from the source, shows no significant warming.

At any rate, I will leave it there; all I am really saying is, think critically and don't just take what the media and what government groups (with an agenda) say at face value all the time.

HippieSmell
08/02/2016, 10:01 PM
I think you should really look into the "97%" that the climate people keep spouting, I mean look at the source of where that data comes from. I think it will change your mind. There really is no consensus, science isn't a democracy. Remember we went from 'new ice age' to 'global warming' to 'climate change' primarily because the data, the real data from the source, shows no significant warming.

At any rate, I will leave it there; all I am really saying is, think critically and don't just take what the media and what government groups (with an agenda) say at face value all the time.
There is a near complete consensus among climate scientists. And I do think critically, but some people need to think less conspiratorially. Better yet, look at the organizations that fund these climate change denier groups if you want to see a wealth distribution scam.

ThRoewer
08/03/2016, 04:31 AM
There is a near complete consensus among climate scientists. And I do think critically, but some people need to think less conspiratorially. Better yet, look at the organizations that fund these climate change denier groups if you want to see a wealth distribution scam.

Precisely! The climate change deniers are actually fairly localized to the US (and Norway) - I wonder why?
Everywhere else in the world it's a pretty broadly accepted theory (in science everything is a theory - the only field where you can actually proof things is mathematics) and acted upon. Most people get it that it's better to be on the safe side than to get faced with a situation that can't be fixed anymore.
Some, like the inhabitants of the Marshal Islands or Bangladesh, have already to face the consequences.

I'm totally ok with the world warring with itself. As for WW2, our departure from the world most definatley did not cause the entire thing. It had been going on for quite a while before we were attacked. The only reason we were attacked in the first place is because the Chinese and other "allies" failed to uphold their agreements and defend us (shocker) either on purpose to drag us into it to help them, or by negligence, that is up for debate. Germany's attempts in both ww1 and ww2 to dominate the world were none of our business, and most certainly neither is the Middle East anymore.

We are not part of the world community, we are used by it both fiscally and militarily, even more so now than in the past. I could quite literally give a crap about the rest of the worlds abilities to defend their own borders. We can't be their surrogate military, especially when these countries literally do squat for us these days.

Being involved in this crap world community literally has brought us nothing as a nation other than debt and death, I'm tired of loosing friends and loved ones to other people's problems and having to pay for it to boot.

In my opinion, we need to just totally pull out of the world and out of these international entanglements like the UN and NATO. Then let them all fend for themselves for a while and let the world restructure itself. The Middle East will never stop fighting, never. It's foolish to think they will, or that any intervention on our behalf will make a difference. The rest of the world doesn't spend any money on their military because they don't have to, we do all of their grunt work for them. As long as we are allied with them, we will have to keep burning through cash to keep our "stick" big enough to ward off attacks to not only ourselves, but the rest of these degenerate nations too.

Lots of things financially need to happen to disconnect our currency from the world market before that actually could happen, otherwise I do agree the dollar would likely tank. But given proper notice of our departure, and the slow disconnect from the world markets, I think our currency would not only be ok, but would end up stronger than ever.

Edit:

Just one rednecks opinion though.

Well, if the world is warring itself the US will also be affected, first maybe just indirect but once there is a victorious side it may become a target as well. And nuclear fallout knows no borders.
Though if I would intend to start WWIII to conquer the world, I would just take the US out as a precaution (a few high altitude nukes will do fine to disable the US). And if I get that idea, be sure Russia and China (or whoever else has plans for world domination) will have already plans to eliminate a potential thread, whether they go to war with each other or with anyone else. China is actually quite open about that (carrier killers).

A disconnect from the rest of the world is not possible - not even remotely. Any country that ever tried that either abandoned it again or failed miserably - the US would not be an exception, especially not in today's interconnected world. (Unless you want to join the Amish and leave all the devil's technologies behind.)

That WWI was the sole and exclusive fault of Germany is a propaganda lie. All the European powers were itching for war (http://www.johndclare.net/causesWWI_Answer1.htm) to get even or protect their interests: Great Britain wanted eliminate the growing German navy (William II's favorite toy) as an unwanted competition to the Royal Navy's domination of the seas back then. France wanted revenge for the defeat in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870. And Russia hoped for a distraction from its social problems to prevent the revolution the war ultimately triggered. Any incident was welcome.
That the German Empire planed to dominate the world after WWI is another baseless propaganda lie. Not only was there not even the remotest chance to accomplish that nor did this ever crossed the Emperor's or General Staff's minds. Hitler was the one who wanted to conquer eastern Europe (France, and all the other west European states were just collateral damage he actually wanted to avoid).
BTW: the Lusitania was a valid target for German U-Boots as it was carrying military cargo (http://www.centenarynews.com/article?id=1616). The whole incident was orchestrated by Great Britain to drag the US into the war on its side. Of course a good deal of German stupidity helped along just fine (Zimmermann Telegram (https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zimmermann_Telegram))

As for WWII: Had the US stayed and made sure the peace treaty would have been fair to build a stable democracy in Germany and not the British and French revenge on Germany it turned out to be, Hitler would have never found the fertile grounds to rise to power. The real irony is that he later got all the concessions on the reparations from France and Great Britain they had previously denied the democratic governments of the Republic of Weimar. The harsh reparations ultimately caused the democratic governments of Germany to fail and pave the way for Hitler's rise.

As for the US staying neutral: Had the US not covertly supported Britain and later entered the war (the attack on Perl Harbor was very welcome to the US government at the least - I actually think they at least let it happen, if not actually intentionally provoked it) Germany would likely have been successful to subdue Great Britain and the Soviets. After some consolidation and with the advanced rocket and jet engine technologies Germany had at that time, the US would have been the next target. Initial concepts for supersonic intercontinental bombers to attack the US already existed. If you plan on world domination you don't leave anyone behind, especially no one who could become a thread.

As for China back then - it was engaged in a bloody civil war of which Japan took advantage. China was for sure in no shape to stop the Japanese expansion. I'm not even sure if China back then had a treaty with the US for mutual defense - actually, I highly doubt it.

alton
08/03/2016, 07:58 AM
Great post everyone, the only thing I will add is we are a world nation already. Look at who owns all of our companies? Europe owns most, China owns a few. As we continue to sell out to the competition we have to wonder what is truly American Made, by American Companies? "When you say Bud", those words use to stand for something.

NAClFiSHy
08/03/2016, 01:15 PM
The article was funny tho.

reef thief
08/03/2016, 06:38 PM
Hippies. Serves em right.

HippieSmell
08/03/2016, 06:56 PM
Hippies. Serves em right.

Yeah! :hmm3:

cougareyes
08/03/2016, 11:20 PM
I find it funny how climate change sheeple listen to the hypocrites that are leading the movement, ignore or don't understand the science that it's based on is false, and don't care that the labs keep getting shut down for falsifying data.

HippieSmell
08/03/2016, 11:31 PM
I find it funny how climate change sheeple listen to the hypocrites that are leading the movement, ignore or don't understand the science that it's based on is false, and don't care that the labs keep getting shut down for falsifying data.

I think this statement deserved some evidence.

PIPSTER
08/04/2016, 07:59 AM
I think this statement deserved some evidence.

http://cen.acs.org/articles/94/i26/USGS-finds-data-fraud-closes.html?type=paidArticleContent

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/alterations-to-climate-data/

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/climate-racketeering/

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

:blown:
:hammer:

jayball
08/04/2016, 09:23 AM
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html


You may want to actually read this one...

It does not really fit your narritive.

Actually take a look at the pages around it too. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives.html

HippieSmell
08/04/2016, 09:37 AM
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

LOL!:blown:

reef thief
08/04/2016, 07:31 PM
The earth has experienced climate changes before humans ever arrived. The idea that we are the main factor in causing the continuous shift is interesting because volcanoes pollute the ozone in much larger amounts than my '01 Explorer. Thanks for wasting our hard earned taxes on looking at pieces of ice and water. Go use it to get a haircut hippies. While I typed this dozens of sea turtles were eaten by sharks and replaced by hundreds of hatchlings.

HippieSmell
08/04/2016, 09:48 PM
The earth has experienced climate changes before humans ever arrived. The idea that we are the main factor in causing the continuous shift is interesting because volcanoes pollute the ozone in much larger amounts than my '01 Explorer. Thanks for wasting our hard earned taxes on looking at pieces of ice and water. Go use it to get a haircut hippies. While I typed this dozens of sea turtles were eaten by sharks and replaced by hundreds of hatchlings.
That's very eloquent. Also, volcanoes do not output more CO2 than burning fossil fuels.

ThRoewer
08/05/2016, 01:30 AM
The earth has experienced climate changes before humans ever arrived. The idea that we are the main factor in causing the continuous shift is interesting because volcanoes pollute the ozone in much larger amounts than my '01 Explorer. Thanks for wasting our hard earned taxes on looking at pieces of ice and water. Go use it to get a haircut hippies. While I typed this dozens of sea turtles were eaten by sharks and replaced by hundreds of hatchlings.

It's all good and fine if driving your Explorer is more important than that the next generation still finds an environment worth living in.

As for the sharks - we kill those intentionally (for shark fin soup) or unintentionally (as by-catch) at a rate of 100 millions a year. Those don't eat sea turtles anymore... Sharks are being hunted to extinction - mostly out of carelessness or superstitious believes.
Sea turtles are primarily under thread because of human actions (not necessarily climate related).

As for the taxes - we wouldn't have to pay as much if the 1% that control 90% of all wealth would actually pay their fair share instead of getting tax break after tax break.

That's very eloquent. Also, volcanoes do not output more CO2 than burning fossil fuels.

Volcanos putting out CO2 is actually something quite important as under normal conditions CO2 would over time be depleted - bound by corals, coralline algae and similar organisms or chemical reactions. Though burning of fossil fuels - CO2 bound and stored away over millions of years - adds to this more than just a bit.

To consider is also that when catastrophic climate change occurred in earth's history it usually also triggered mass extinctions.

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 08:40 AM
Volcanos putting out CO2 is actually something quite important as under normal conditions CO2 would over time be depleted - bound by corals, coralline algae and similar organisms or chemical reactions. Though burning of fossil fuels - CO2 bound and stored away over millions of years - adds to this more than just a bit.


That's fine, but that's not what he's saying. He thinks volcanoes have more impact on co2 levels than burning fossil fuels.

This is what I don't understand. This type of misinformation has been around for decades. The science gets better and moves forward, but the same counter augments get recycled over and over.

sde1500
08/05/2016, 09:48 AM
I think this statement deserved some evidence.

Which part, the leaders being hypocrites?

I give you Al Gore http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

And also, current outspoken hypocrite Leonardo DiCaprio: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/01/leonardo-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#167b360168a2

I am of the belief that we as a people certainly can do better than we are. Take climate out of the picture, and just look at all the stories of pollution. Smog, plastics in the ocean etc. But if we are to have spokespeople flying private jets everywhere, consuming 10-20x more energy than the average person they are lecturing to consume less, how does this help?

reef thief
08/05/2016, 11:00 AM
As extinction occurs throughout time we will prevail over the other creatures no matter what. One day man will stand victoriously over the earth after defeating all other forms of life. It will only be at this moment in time when we can truly say that we've conquered the earth and will move on to the next world to harvest. I feel an empty hole inside knowing that I will never stand shoulder to shoulder with our future generations during this celebration.

Bent
08/05/2016, 11:21 AM
Just use common sense people. I don't get why this has to be an argument every time.

Don't throw your trash out the window and try to keep the amount down.
Minimize fuel consumption (who wants to pay for gas anyway?)
Power your home efficiently
Live more off the land.

All of these things end up saving you money anyway, so I don't get the big deal.

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 12:09 PM
Which part, the leaders being hypocrites?

I give you Al Gore http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

And also, current outspoken hypocrite Leonardo DiCaprio: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2016/03/01/leonardo-dicaprios-carbon-footprint-is-much-higher-than-he-thinks/#167b360168a2

I am of the belief that we as a people certainly can do better than we are. Take climate out of the picture, and just look at all the stories of pollution. Smog, plastics in the ocean etc. But if we are to have spokespeople flying private jets everywhere, consuming 10-20x more energy than the average person they are lecturing to consume less, how does this help?
I could care less about hypocrisy because it has absolutely ZERO impact on the science.

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 12:12 PM
Just use common sense people. I don't get why this has to be an argument every time.

Don't throw your trash out the window and try to keep the amount down.
Minimize fuel consumption (who wants to pay for gas anyway?)
Power your home efficiently
Live more off the land.

All of these things end up saving you money anyway, so I don't get the big deal.
That's all good stuff, but I'd also add strong government incentives and regulations.

PIPSTER
08/05/2016, 01:31 PM
I could care less about hypocrisy because it has absolutely ZERO impact on the science.

That's all good stuff, but I'd also add strong government incentives and regulations.

:rolleye1:

Move to Venezuela, they have your dream government.

Live free or die.:hammer:

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 02:32 PM
:rolleye1:

Move to Venezuela, they have your dream government.

Live free or die.:hammer:
They do? Why, what makes them so great?

PIPSTER
08/05/2016, 02:43 PM
Question:
They do? Why, what makes them so great?

Own answer to own question.
That's all good stuff, but I'd also add strong government incentives and regulations.

:wave:

alton
08/05/2016, 02:55 PM
Just use common sense people. I don't get why this has to be an argument every time.

Don't throw your trash out the window and try to keep the amount down.
Minimize fuel consumption (who wants to pay for gas anyway?)
Power your home efficiently
Live more off the land.

All of these things end up saving you money anyway, so I don't get the big deal.

I had a meeting in Eagle Pass, TX this week and talking with a person in general conversation he brought up the fact he just came back from Nuevo Laredo and said as the bus he was riding in went over a bridge he could smell a foul odor. He looked down to see a large concrete pipe full of raw sewage running towards the Rio Grande River. Yep if we would do the common sense things, it might not fix everything but would be a start.

Potatohead
08/05/2016, 03:14 PM
As extinction occurs throughout time we will prevail over the other creatures no matter what. One day man will stand victoriously over the earth after defeating all other forms of life. It will only be at this moment in time when we can truly say that we've conquered the earth and will move on to the next world to harvest. I feel an empty hole inside knowing that I will never stand shoulder to shoulder with our future generations during this celebration.

I can't take this seriously. This must be a joke?

sde1500
08/05/2016, 03:28 PM
I could care less about hypocrisy because it has absolutely ZERO impact on the science.

Actually it does. Most of the science is too complex for average people to understand indepth. That being the case, if the people that decide to take stand to motivate humanity to change, but they themselves do not change, what point is there? Most people would look at Gore saying "consume less" while consuming 12-20x the energy an average household does and go "if he can do that, I can too". And thus nothing gets done. Real leaders live by example. However these people like DiCaprio and Gore came to be spokespeople of climate change through Documentaries and speeches, they hurt the cause by living as hypocrites.

reef thief
08/05/2016, 04:10 PM
America has extremely high standards when it comes to energy conservation, waste management, and environmental restoration. It may not be visible to us on a day to day basis but but if you take a trip to Delhi, Baghdad, or Seoul you would tell yourself that the earth is doomed and there is no point in caring anymore. These are just a few examples of what the majority of the world is like. I don't burn trash in my front yard so therefore there is no burnt trash in MY front yard.

hann1bal
08/05/2016, 04:27 PM
Thread like this make me hate the world. Its like the politician that brought the snowball to the capital building to "disprove" global warming. Dude, your a politician not a climate scientist.

stay in your lane!

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 04:57 PM
Actually it does. Most of the science is too complex for average people to understand indepth. That being the case, if the people that decide to take stand to motivate humanity to change, but they themselves do not change, what point is there? Most people would look at Gore saying "consume less" while consuming 12-20x the energy an average household does and go "if he can do that, I can too". And thus nothing gets done. Real leaders live by example. However these people like DiCaprio and Gore came to be spokespeople of climate change through Documentaries and speeches, they hurt the cause by living as hypocrites.
They can't impact the science and if they can't skirt regulation and government incentives, I see very little harm they can do. Hypocrites, sure. But who cares?

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 05:04 PM
Thread like this make me hate the world. Its like the politician that brought the snowball to the capital building to "disprove" global warming. Dude, your a politician not a climate scientist.

stay in your lane!
James Inhofe. He's been in the pocket of big oil for years and is chair of the Senate environment committee. We wonder why nothing gets done.

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 05:09 PM
Question:


Own answer to own question.


:wave:
Sure, but why did you choose Venezuela? Why not a European country, like Germany?

ThRoewer
08/05/2016, 05:10 PM
America has extremely high standards when it comes to energy conservation, waste management, and environmental restoration. It may not be visible to us on a day to day basis but but if you take a trip to Delhi, Baghdad, or Seoul you would tell yourself that the earth is doomed and there is no point in caring anymore. These are just a few examples of what the majority of the world is like. I don't burn trash in my front yard so therefore there is no burnt trash in MY front yard.

It's always easy to look like a bright star in the dark.
Maybe you need to make a trip to Europe to see what high standards in energy conservation, waste management, and environmental protection are.
Especially in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland those things are taken quite seriously.

Fredfish
08/05/2016, 06:33 PM
It's always easy to look like a bright star in the dark.
Maybe you need to make a trip to Europe to see what high standards in energy conservation, waste management, and environmental protection are.
Especially in Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland those things are taken quite seriously.
That is very true, but you have to remember how Europe got there. If you go back to the mid '70s, anyone falling into a major river in Europe had to go through a chemical detox because of all the crap found in those water ways. Bottled water became main stream in Europe because there really where a lot of places where it was not a good idea to drink the ground water.

We as humans are a reactive, not a proactive, species. We literally need to be drowning in our own sh*t before we do anything.

In North America, with lower population densities and lots of wide open spaces, the solution to pollution has been dilution. Out of sight, out of mind.

The last American survey on global warming that I saw had 75% of people surveyed acknowledging that human induced climate change was real. Sadly most of that same group did not think we need to do anything about it.

What amazes me about these discussions is that anyone can believe that a multi generational conspiracy across all of the climate related sciences exists. Name me one other real conspiracy that broad and deep. Some people may be good organizers, but nobody is that good.

Bent
08/05/2016, 09:06 PM
That's all good stuff, but I'd also add strong government incentives and regulations.

so wait a minute.

The government already takes the exorbanent amount of money it already gets, uses it to actually contribute to the problem by flying around in expensive jets and giving it to oil producing countries and your plan is to give them more?

How does that make any sense?

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 09:34 PM
so wait a minute.

The government already takes the exorbanent amount of money it already gets, uses it to actually contribute to the problem by flying around in expensive jets and giving it to oil producing countries and your plan is to give them more?

How does that make any sense?
I'm not sure I follow. A regulation on say, increased fuel standards for cars, or funding research of alternative energy does none of the things you just mentioned.

Bent
08/05/2016, 09:40 PM
I'm not sure I follow. A regulation on say, increased fuel standards for cars, or funding research of alternative energy does none of the things you just mentioned.

Ok I see what you are saying. I thought you were talking about increasing tax rates.

HippieSmell
08/05/2016, 10:09 PM
Ok I see what you are saying. I thought you were talking about increasing tax rates.
I'd support a tax increase for research. The government should fund more fundamental science. It's one of those things that is difficult for a private company to get approval, but is widely applicable and beneficial across society.

Bent
08/06/2016, 09:12 AM
I'd support a tax increase for research. The government should fund more fundamental science. It's one of those things that is difficult for a private company to get approval, but is widely applicable and beneficial across society.

I agree. That's what I meant by the government wasting money. They get plenty of income to invest and help, they just are all too busy blasting it on expensive suits, hookers and blow to bother with it.

alton
08/08/2016, 06:36 AM
In 1978 my 1/2 ton truck got 12 miles to the gallon, In 1982 my Corvette got 16 miles to the gallon, both on the highway. Today my 2001 3/4 ton truck gets 19, and my 2014 Corvette gets 31 on the highway. In many ways we have done an excellent job increasing fuel economy. Come visit Texas if you want to see a bunch of wind farms and solar energy being used.

HippieSmell
08/08/2016, 08:56 AM
In 1978 my 1/2 ton truck got 12 miles to the gallon, In 1982 my Corvette got 16 miles to the gallon, both on the highway. Today my 2001 3/4 ton truck gets 19, and my 2014 Corvette gets 31 on the highway. In many ways we have done an excellent job increasing fuel economy. Come visit Texas if you want to see a bunch of wind farms and solar energy being used.

That's what regulations and incentives can accomplish.

CuzzA
08/08/2016, 10:26 AM
For a little perspective... and alternate theory.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783

Climate changes in the past 17,000 years from the GISP2 Greenland ice core. Red = warming, blue = cooling. (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997)

http://reefcentral.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=355892&stc=1&d=1470669847

CHSUB
08/08/2016, 10:47 AM
any data can be misleading, the Earth has been warmer and colder in its long history.

alton
08/08/2016, 01:48 PM
That's what regulations and incentives can accomplish.

Actually I was thinking it was Toyota and Datsun/Nissan/ BMW/Volkswagon/Mercedes? Although Regulation killed the Hummer and the Ford Excursion. At 7 mpg both where not going to last. Although for some reason now they no longer give fuel economy for large trucks? And that same regulation let Toyota build Tundras like no end because of all the Camry's and Corrolla's getting 30+ miles to the gallon, it helps with there average to meet the standards. But at 13 mpg I still would never own one, but that's my choice not the government. We as a nation have become to dependent on the government to fix everything, and take care of everyone. Sorry I got off of the subject

HippieSmell
08/08/2016, 08:10 PM
Actually I was thinking it was Toyota and Datsun/Nissan/ BMW/Volkswagon/Mercedes? Although Regulation killed the Hummer and the Ford Excursion. At 7 mpg both where not going to last. Although for some reason now they no longer give fuel economy for large trucks? And that same regulation let Toyota build Tundras like no end because of all the Camry's and Corrolla's getting 30+ miles to the gallon, it helps with there average to meet the standards. But at 13 mpg I still would never own one, but that's my choice not the government. We as a nation have become to dependent on the government to fix everything, and take care of everyone. Sorry I got off of the subject
If it weren't for setting standards, we'd have much lower average mpg. It's not that it might not have ever happened on its own, but the market forces needed to encourage those changes would take longer to develop and could be forces we don't want to see develop, such as fuel shortages or a totally fubar environment. It's not government dependence, it's government foresight. Market forces are almost completely reactionary.

gone fishin
08/08/2016, 08:17 PM
The company I work for has been the recipient of government grants for making drop in fuels for jets from basically sugar water.

alton
08/09/2016, 06:26 AM
The company I work for has been the recipient of government grants for making drop in fuels for jets from basically sugar water.

You do realize how we get sugar?
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-december/sugar-cane-burning-not-so-sweet-for-florida-s-residents
Here in South Texas the smoke from Mexico darkens the skies in late spring, people with asthma have a very hard time

HippieSmell
08/09/2016, 08:49 AM
You do realize how we get sugar?
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-december/sugar-cane-burning-not-so-sweet-for-florida-s-residents
Here in South Texas the smoke from Mexico darkens the skies in late spring, people with asthma have a very hard time
It's not as if all sugar comes from there. His company might use sugar beets.

Also, do we need to point out where oil comes from and compare which is worse?

alton
08/09/2016, 11:02 AM
Living in South Texas we have more than enough oil and gas to supply most of the US, what we don't have is water. My water bill for 6,000 gallons is about $45, I went on vacation last year and a toilet malfunctioned for two days my usage that month was 12,000 gallons and the bill was over $100. FYI I do not water my grass.

sde1500
08/09/2016, 11:13 AM
what we don't have is water.

From what I hear, other parts of your state certainly DO NOT have that problem.

gone fishin
08/09/2016, 12:10 PM
You do realize how we get sugar?
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-december/sugar-cane-burning-not-so-sweet-for-florida-s-residents
Here in South Texas the smoke from Mexico darkens the skies in late spring, people with asthma have a very hard time

We have used beet sugar, corn stover, pine chips and a few other items.

alton
08/09/2016, 02:12 PM
From what I hear, other parts of your state certainly DO NOT have that problem.

The city of San Antonio is getting ready to spend 3.4 billion to get water from a source 142 miles away. Houston has plenty but that is 200+ miles away

ThRoewer
08/10/2016, 03:58 AM
You do realize how we get sugar?
http://earthjustice.org/blog/2015-december/sugar-cane-burning-not-so-sweet-for-florida-s-residents
Here in South Texas the smoke from Mexico darkens the skies in late spring, people with asthma have a very hard time

Be glad you don't live in Riverside County. When the Santa Ana winds blow you can see the black wall of air from there coming through the passes into LA.

Living in South Texas we have more than enough oil and gas to supply most of the US, what we don't have is water. My water bill for 6,000 gallons is about $45, I went on vacation last year and a toilet malfunctioned for two days my usage that month was 12,000 gallons and the bill was over $100. FYI I do not water my grass.

I think here in California it's worse - despite el Niño the reservoirs are still not full. Here is in many places watering the lawn already banned or at least strictly limited.
Texas gets at least once in a while a tropical storm from the gulf.

If things go on like this the next wars are not about oil but about drinkable water...

power boat jim
08/10/2016, 11:38 AM
If it weren't for setting standards, we'd have much lower average mpg. It's not that it might not have ever happened on its own, but the market forces needed to encourage those changes would take longer to develop and could be forces we don't want to see develop, such as fuel shortages or a totally fubar environment. It's not government dependence, it's government foresight. Market forces are almost completely reactionary.

It may have started that way, but it is now do business as the EPA says or you are legislated out of existence. Our government has decided we dont need large sedans anymore, we get appliances that only last a few years instead of 30 and a whole list of other products that have been legislated into a "green" corner that are now worthless under the guise of energy consumption or emissions (try buying a gas can you can actually use).

Lost in the equation are the resources it takes to continually replace the energy efficient appliances. we have now replaced cars with way more expensive large SUVs. The EPA has become a clearing house for what products get to market and now controls most industry in the U.S. There is no longer a consumer supply and demand for what we get. They have decided what we get, whats good for us and who gets to make it.

That isnt setting standards its government over reach.

HippieSmell
08/10/2016, 06:09 PM
It may have started that way, but it is now do business as the EPA says or you are legislated out of existence. Our government has decided we dont need large sedans anymore, we get appliances that only last a few years instead of 30 and a whole list of other products that have been legislated into a "green" corner that are now worthless under the guise of energy consumption or emissions (try buying a gas can you can actually use).

Lost in the equation are the resources it takes to continually replace the energy efficient appliances. we have now replaced cars with way more expensive large SUVs. The EPA has become a clearing house for what products get to market and now controls most industry in the U.S. There is no longer a consumer supply and demand for what we get. They have decided what we get, whats good for us and who gets to make it.

That isnt setting standards its government over reach.
I think you're greatly exaggerating. The government doesn't manufacturer appliances, or anything else for that matter. Isn't it up to the manufacturer to produce a quality product? My appliances don't break after a few years, and I have no shortage of options when it comes to vehicles.

The bottom line is that the government has a responsibility to ensure the environment my family lives in isn't needlessly polluted by those wanting to save a dollar. Companies have repeatedly shown they are unwilling to self regulate, and any company that does is likely to be at a disadvantage due to the increase in costs. A government regulation is actually the most fair option because is creates a level playing field. Until you start factoring in international trade agreements, but that's another issue.

power boat jim
08/10/2016, 06:57 PM
I think you're greatly exaggerating. The government doesn't manufacturer appliances, or anything else for that matter. Isn't it up to the manufacturer to produce a quality product? My appliances don't break after a few years, and I have no shortage of options when it comes to vehicles.

The bottom line is that the government has a responsibility to ensure the environment my family lives in isn't needlessly polluted by those wanting to save a dollar. Companies have repeatedly shown they are unwilling to self regulate, and any company that does is likely to be at a disadvantage due to the increase in costs. A government regulation is actually the most fair option because is creates a level playing field. Until you start factoring in international trade agreements, but that's another issue.

Unfortunately I am not exaggerating, The EPA controls more of whats made, how its made and who makes it then most people know. They do not allow a level playing field at all. it is quiet the opposite. They have for all intensive purposes removed the free market from alot of things. I do agree we need some sort of guard rails and enforcement on industry to insure the environment we live in isnt turned into a junk heap. They have just been allowed too far and are now too power full. The dont regulate the environment anymore they regulate industry.

a family member worked there for 17 years and left due to some of the inconsistencies and favoritism some were shown. Believe it or dont, it doesnt change what goes on.

HippieSmell
08/10/2016, 07:45 PM
Unfortunately I am not exaggerating, The EPA controls more of whats made, how its made and who makes it then most people know. They do not allow a level playing field at all. it is quiet the opposite. They have for all intensive purposes removed the free market from alot of things. I do agree we need some sort of guard rails and enforcement on industry to insure the environment we live in isnt turned into a junk heap. They have just been allowed too far and are now too power full. The dont regulate the environment anymore they regulate industry.

a family member worked there for 17 years and left due to some of the inconsistencies and favoritism some were shown. Believe it or dont, it doesnt change what goes on.
I won't pretend to know the inner workings of the EPA, but if there's favoritism going on it should be brought to light. If there is, I'll bet it's tied to campaign contributions. I'm not aware of any significant EPA scandal, however. Either way, the EPA is a much needed agency and the assault by some on its very existence is a step backwards.

power boat jim
08/10/2016, 09:54 PM
I won't pretend to know the inner workings of the EPA, but if there's favoritism going on it should be brought to light. If there is, I'll bet it's tied to campaign contributions. I'm not aware of any significant EPA scandal, however. Either way, the EPA is a much needed agency and the assault by some on its very existence is a step backwards.

I wont say it should not exist. They have done some good things in the past. You cant have a scandal unless things are brought to light. There are certain checks and audits that are done but they are performed by the agency itself. Think what you want about that. All I will say is things changed some years ago and the system is not as it used to be. I will leave it at that.

HippieSmell
08/10/2016, 10:13 PM
I wont say it should not exist. They have done some good things in the past. You cant have a scandal unless things are brought to light. There are certain checks and audits that are done but they are performed by the agency itself. Think what you want about that. All I will say is things changed some years ago and the system is not as it used to be. I will leave it at that.
I know the EPA has been recently used to bypass an obstructionist Congress. I'm sure some will see that as corrupt. I'm just speculating about what you're implying.

Fredfish
08/10/2016, 11:25 PM
I wont say it should not exist. They have done some good things in the past. You cant have a scandal unless things are brought to light. There are certain checks and audits that are done but they are performed by the agency itself. Think what you want about that. All I will say is things changed some years ago and the system is not as it used to be. I will leave it at that.
There is some irony in that. Government agencies are no better at regulating themselves than private corporations. :)

alton
08/11/2016, 06:54 AM
There is some irony in that. Government agencies are no better at regulating themselves than private corporations. :)

http://www.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/questions-linger-over-kelly-afb-contamination-even-after-property-changes-hands/Content?oid=2241824

The answer here was to give it to the city

Defiant Arms
08/11/2016, 09:37 AM
i watch suspicious observer every day its a great youtube channel and informative

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBTKC_asylk

Fredfish
08/11/2016, 08:10 PM
http://www.sacurrent.com/sanantonio/questions-linger-over-kelly-afb-contamination-even-after-property-changes-hands/Content?oid=2241824

The answer here was to give it to the city
Global warming is going to be a little hard to give away...

Bent
08/12/2016, 02:23 PM
Actually I was thinking it was Toyota and Datsun/Nissan/ BMW/Volkswagon/Mercedes? Although Regulation killed the Hummer and the Ford Excursion. At 7 mpg both where not going to last. Although for some reason now they no longer give fuel economy for large trucks? And that same regulation let Toyota build Tundras like no end because of all the Camry's and Corrolla's getting 30+ miles to the gallon, it helps with there average to meet the standards. But at 13 mpg I still would never own one, but that's my choice not the government. We as a nation have become to dependent on the government to fix everything, and take care of everyone. Sorry I got off of the subject

Where did you get that hummer models got 7mpg?

My h3 on 35's got 15, my h2 on 40" super swampers got 12.

A diesel conversion h2 can get 20-25mpg.

the original non turbo h1 gets about 12, the turbo diesel Z block gets about 15, and the cast iron turbo F block gets about 18.

Anyway, fuel economy only paints a small part of the picture anyway, here's why:

Combine those hummer fuel economy numbers with the amount built and sold and then compare it to something insanely popular like the Ford F-150 which has just surpassed 250,000 units sold in 2016. 2015 total f150 sales were above 700,000 units. That's in a single year.

The best sales year that hummer had was 2003 and they sold a grand total of about 34,000 units. That's literally 20x less sales numbers. Which means that every f150 you see is putting out over 20x more pollutants than the H2, which made me scratch my head a little when hummer got so much grief for fuel economy based upon little fact and a lot of emotional response.

alton
08/12/2016, 03:07 PM
Well Bent I guess that was a bad rumor I heard, but there was plenty of them on IH10 out of gas when a hurricane was suppose to hit Houston some time back as they traveled to San Antonio and could not find gas. Although I did have a friend who had the same 6.0 in his 4 door chevy and he got 13 on a good day. So you must of had a good one that managed 12. Sorry I like my 2001 Duramax 6.6 at almost 250K miles.

alton
08/12/2016, 03:38 PM
But it is on the internet, so it has to be true?
https://www.reference.com/vehicles/hummer-h2-s-gas-mileage-5fd3c663bbc38684
Hey once again if you want it go for it. My deal is I see people driving from SA to Austin everyday which is 120 miles round trip, even if you are getting 30 mpg you are still wasting fuel over someone who drives ten miles to work and get 10 mpg.

HippieSmell
08/12/2016, 03:47 PM
Anyway, fuel economy only paints a small part of the picture anyway, here's why:

Combine those hummer fuel economy numbers with the amount built and sold and then compare it to something insanely popular like the Ford F-150 which has just surpassed 250,000 units sold in 2016. 2015 total f150 sales were above 700,000 units. That's in a single year.

The best sales year that hummer had was 2003 and they sold a grand total of about 34,000 units. That's literally 20x less sales numbers. Which means that every f150 you see is putting out over 20x more pollutants than the H2, which made me scratch my head a little when hummer got so much grief for fuel economy based upon little fact and a lot of emotional response.
That is some seriously fuzzy math.

Potatohead
08/12/2016, 03:58 PM
That is some seriously fuzzy math.

It's ok to be a murderer because there aren't very many murderers


What?

CHSUB
08/12/2016, 04:02 PM
Where did you get that hummer models got 7mpg?

My h3 on 35's got 15, my h2 on 40" super swampers got 12.

A diesel conversion h2 can get 20-25mpg.

the original non turbo h1 gets about 12, the turbo diesel Z block gets about 15, and the cast iron turbo F block gets about 18.

Anyway, fuel economy only paints a small part of the picture anyway, here's why:

Combine those hummer fuel economy numbers with the amount built and sold and then compare it to something insanely popular like the Ford F-150 which has just surpassed 250,000 units sold in 2016. 2015 total f150 sales were above 700,000 units. That's in a single year.

The best sales year that hummer had was 2003 and they sold a grand total of about 34,000 units. That's literally 20x less sales numbers. Which means that every f150 you see is putting out over 20x more pollutants than the H2, which made me scratch my head a little when hummer got so much grief for fuel economy based upon little fact and a lot of emotional response.

the grief about the hummer was more about the tax break, which is based on fact and without emotion. few would have bought one without it....

http://www.section179.org/section_179_vehicle_deductions.html

Bent
08/13/2016, 10:18 AM
the grief about the hummer was more about the tax break, which is based on fact and without emotion. few would have bought one without it....

http://www.section179.org/section_179_vehicle_deductions.html

The tax break loophole was closed years ago. You can only get it now if you buy the vehicle for small business purposes. It was meant to give people tax breaks on dump trucks and commercial vehicles. And no, the treehuggers were not upset about the tax break.

Bent
08/13/2016, 10:21 AM
That is some seriously fuzzy math.

It's really not. Two vehicles will expel more pollutants than one.

Defiant Arms
08/13/2016, 10:26 AM
Well Bent I guess that was a bad rumor I heard, but there was plenty of them on IH10 out of gas when a hurricane was suppose to hit Houston some time back as they traveled to San Antonio and could not find gas. Although I did have a friend who had the same 6.0 in his 4 door chevy and he got 13 on a good day. So you must of had a good one that managed 12. Sorry I like my 2001 Duramax 6.6 at almost 250K miles.

Need to do a LLY swap when the time comes :bounce3: sorry i spend to much time on a duramaxdiesels forum

CHSUB
08/13/2016, 11:57 AM
The tax break loophole was closed years ago. You can only get it now if you buy the vehicle for small business purposes. It was meant to give people tax breaks on dump trucks and commercial vehicles. And no, the treehuggers were not upset about the tax break.

the tax break was closed, yes; but only after hummer had record sales. every lawyer, doctor, and anyone else with two nickels in Miami was buying them. A dealership in South Miami open just to sell them. After the tax break went away the dealership went back to selling Cadies again and now hummer is gone. The loophole was changed because of the weight of the vehicle not the gas mileage, which few people cared about.

HippieSmell
08/13/2016, 12:11 PM
It's really not. Two vehicles will expel more pollutants than one.

You said every F150 produced 20x more pollution than a Hummer, which is a silly thing to say. It's like saying it's OK for one street in Bel Aire to water their lawns during a drought because it's less water than what's sweated out by migrant workers as they tend the fields.

reef thief
08/14/2016, 08:12 PM
20X sounds about right......somehow. Why trust science when we can just make up real things. Every ten seconds an American dies from a vaccine.

Bent
08/17/2016, 06:29 AM
the tax break was closed, yes; but only after hummer had record sales. every lawyer, doctor, and anyone else with two nickels in Miami was buying them. A dealership in South Miami open just to sell them. After the tax break went away the dealership went back to selling Cadies again and now hummer is gone. The loophole was changed because of the weight of the vehicle not the gas mileage, which few people cared about.

Record sales? Hardly.

I don't want to get into a vehicle debate here, but you do realize that the most sales the H2 ever had was 33,000 units in 2005 world wide? And we are just talking about the H2 here because it was the only vehicle in the hummer line that qualified for the tax break.

Guess what the yearly F150 sales were for 2005? 900,000 units in the US alone, international sales equaled about 70,000 units. That's almost a million vehicles put on the road. Fuel economy for the f150 4x4 in 2005 was about 14city and 16hwy. Slightly better than the H2, but by sheer numbers, you tell me which brand polluted the environment more that year.

Bent
08/17/2016, 06:31 AM
You said every F150 produced 20x more pollution than a Hummer, which is a silly thing to say. It's like saying it's OK for one street in Bel Aire to water their lawns during a drought because it's less water than what's sweated out by migrant workers as they tend the fields.

Ok, so the 20x number may not be exactly correct, but given the mpg average for both vehicles compared to the sheer number put on the road, the F150 polluted more per year than the h2 by a wide wide wide wide margin.

power boat jim
08/17/2016, 07:14 AM
Ok, so the 20x number may not be exactly correct, but given the mpg average for both vehicles compared to the sheer number put on the road, the F150 polluted more per year than the h2 by a wide wide wide wide margin.

Your statistics presenting your argument have nothing to do with one another. One F-150 did not pollute more then one H2 therefore no matter how many of each you sell wont ever change that fact. In your comparison you could say ANY vehicle that sold slightly more then 33,000 vehicles polluted more then the H2. Producing more or less vehicles has nothing to do with the function of each individual vehicle.

HippieSmell
08/17/2016, 08:54 AM
Ok, so the 20x number may not be exactly correct, but given the mpg average for both vehicles compared to the sheer number put on the road, the F150 polluted more per year than the h2 by a wide wide wide wide margin.

If everyone drove a Prius, but one guy had a Hummer, he could say the same thing. It doesn't really pass the sniff test, does it?

CHSUB
08/17/2016, 12:15 PM
Record sales? Hardly.

I don't want to get into a vehicle debate here, but you do realize that the most sales the H2 ever had was 33,000 units in 2005 world wide? And we are just talking about the H2 here because it was the only vehicle in the hummer line that qualified for the tax break.

Guess what the yearly F150 sales were for 2005? 900,000 units in the US alone, international sales equaled about 70,000 units. That's almost a million vehicles put on the road. Fuel economy for the f150 4x4 in 2005 was about 14city and 16hwy. Slightly better than the H2, but by sheer numbers, you tell me which brand polluted the environment more that year.

record sales for the hummer h2 at a gross weight over 6000 lbs, not other "stuff"; of course. many were buying that POS for the tax break only. i was commenting on the loophole, not the gas mileage, and how people were allowed to fully depreciated a recreational vehicles like a dump truck. Once the tax break went away, so did the H2. i don't see the connection with the f150, it isn't a SUV?

Bent
08/17/2016, 01:33 PM
record sales for the hummer h2 at a gross weight over 6000 lbs, not other "stuff"; of course. many were buying that POS for the tax break only. i was commenting on the loophole, not the gas mileage, and how people were allowed to fully depreciated a recreational vehicles like a dump truck. Once the tax break went away, so did the H2. i don't see the connection with the f150, it isn't a SUV?

I just picked a car, I picked the f150 because it's the best selling vehicle in America and also has 4x4.

The H2 is not and was not a POS. Mine was used as intended on the trails and never missed a beat.

Hummer also went away because GM was required to close extraneous companies like Saturn, Pontiac and hummer and consolidate the company in order to receive money from the government bailout, not for any other reason, and certainly not because of US tax code changes.

Also, our original discussion was that people bagging on hummer did so because of the demonization of people spreading rumors of totally false fuel efficiency numbers, which is why I produced the comparison to a more popular 4x4. I doubt that it was because of the tax write off:

C.Eymann
08/17/2016, 02:23 PM
Interesting read.

http://www.goliath.com/auto/10-of-the-worst-polluting-cars-on-the-road/3/

My car is #5 , plus I have quite a few mods that don't help at all.

I do feel guilty, but the feels produced by the right foot make up for that.

CHSUB
08/17/2016, 03:03 PM
I just picked a car, I picked the f150 because it's the best selling vehicle in America and also has 4x4.

The H2 is not and was not a POS. Mine was used as intended on the trails and never missed a beat.

Hummer also went away because GM was required to close extraneous companies like Saturn, Pontiac and hummer and consolidate the company in order to receive money from the government bailout, not for any other reason, and certainly not because of US tax code changes.

Also, our original discussion was that people bagging on hummer did so because of the demonization of people spreading rumors of totally false fuel efficiency numbers, which is why I produced the comparison to a more popular 4x4. I doubt that it was because of the tax write off:


you can doubt all you want, but after the write off went away so did the H2. the only thing in this world that goes away are "things" that people don't want, if there was money to be made someone would be selling H2s. GM can't even sell the company away for 2 nickels!!!!

Quote: "General Motors' efforts to sell Hummer to a little-known Chinese company have fallen apart, the U.S. automaker announced on Wednesday. As a result, GM will begin to dismantle a brand of gas-guzzling SUVs that was synonymous with pre–financial crisis wealth and excess. "

Bent
08/18/2016, 12:01 PM
you can doubt all you want, but after the write off went away so did the H2. the only thing in this world that goes away are "things" that people don't want, if there was money to be made someone would be selling H2s. GM can't even sell the company away for 2 nickels!!!!

Quote: "General Motors' efforts to sell Hummer to a little-known Chinese company have fallen apart, the U.S. automaker announced on Wednesday. As a result, GM will begin to dismantle a brand of gas-guzzling SUVs that was synonymous with pre–financial crisis wealth and excess. "


Exactly how did we get on this subject?

This is like the third thread I've derailed talking about cars.

PIPSTER
08/18/2016, 01:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html

They aren't scientists, they are philosophers.

Science is purely, and only empiricism.
If you didn't observe it, you have nothing to say it's based in science.
:uzi:

HippieSmell
08/18/2016, 01:07 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html

They aren't scientists, they are philosophers.

Science is purely, and only empiricism.
If you didn't observe it, you have nothing to say it's based in science.
:uzi:
That's not true.

PIPSTER
08/18/2016, 05:19 PM
That's not true.

Of course it is.
They philosophized that the coral reef wouldn't recover for many, many years.

But when they could look at today's results and compare it to what they knew and observed back then, they had to eat some crow, didn't they? :fish1:

Fredfish
08/18/2016, 06:29 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html

They aren't scientists, they are philosophers.

Science is purely, and only empiricism.
If you didn't observe it, you have nothing to say it's based in science.
:uzi:
Which they are you referring to? The ones in the linked article?

At the heart of science is ideas, observations and speculation (known as a hypothesis). Rigorous empirical proof and independent third party verification are what prove any given hypothesis and add to known science.

I suppose you could argue that scientist engage in both philosophy and science. Without new ideas and speculation, there is nothing to empirically prove or disprove.

Fredfish
08/18/2016, 06:33 PM
Of course it is.
They philosophized that the coral reef wouldn't recover for many, many years.

But when they could look at today's results and compare it to what they knew and observed back then, they had to eat some crow, didn't they? :fish1:
They hypothesize. The follow up observation does not match the general hypothesis. Now there is additional work to do to understand why the reef recovered, if the second observation is a long term recovery, or if there is something else going on.

PIPSTER
08/19/2016, 03:36 PM
http://www.livescience.com/28440-coral-reefs-can-regenerate.html

It was already known that coral reefs go through cycles where new coral grows on old, dead coral skeletons. This is how the great reefs have grown so big.

They totally ignored this when they said "It will take decades to restore these reefs..."

This they declared as fact, not as a hypothesis.
It's just like all the other myths which are declared as facts today...that's philosophy in the name of science.

Back to observations...
http://polarocean.co.uk/running-superlatives-collective-excitement-running-shelter/

HippieSmell
08/19/2016, 07:13 PM
http://www.livescience.com/28440-coral-reefs-can-regenerate.html

It was already known that coral reefs go through cycles where new coral grows on old, dead coral skeletons. This is how the great reefs have grown so big.

They totally ignored this when they said "It will take decades to restore these reefs..."

This they declared as fact, not as a hypothesis.
It's just like all the other myths which are declared as facts today...that's philosophy in the name of science.

Back to observations...
http://polarocean.co.uk/running-superlatives-collective-excitement-running-shelter/
You need to remember that you're reading a synopsis of a study in a mainstream publication. Unless you read the actual research paper, you won't know what exact language was used. There are many times where research conclusions get mangled by some reporter.

Other than that, I'm not sure what your gripe is. The prevailing science changes over time as more data is collected. Isn't that a good thing?

reef thief
08/20/2016, 06:19 PM
Can't you see that he read this on the internet?

HippieSmell
08/20/2016, 08:24 PM
Can't you see that he read this on the internet?

I'm referencing the NY Times article he originally brought up, but it doesn't matter. They're all rehashes of a study.

Dmorty217
08/23/2016, 10:28 AM
NY Times... now thats a credible publication:lol::deadhorse1:

HippieSmell
08/23/2016, 12:00 PM
NY Times... now thats a credible publication:lol::deadhorse1:

I think you missed my point.

PIPSTER
08/24/2016, 07:35 AM
I was using the trash of NYT against itself and against your "philosophy" of science.

Here's another one for you:

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-5-bleached-not-93-says-new-report-discrepancy-phenomenal/

I knew this instantly when the first headlines appeared and everyone was freaking out.

HippieSmell
08/24/2016, 10:38 AM
I was using the trash of NYT against itself and against your "philosophy" of science.

Here's another one for you:

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/08/great-barrier-reef-bleaching-5-bleached-not-93-says-new-report-discrepancy-phenomenal/

I knew this instantly when the first headlines appeared and everyone was freaking out.
Reread your linked article. Pay attention to the words "bleached" and "damaged". I'll refrain from attacking your "source".

HoHum
08/26/2016, 06:08 PM
A lot of scientist say the sun has gotten hotter but you will never here that any where because that's not "politically correct". Keep you political views off the site. You can bet that those scientists won't get a dime from our government.

HippieSmell
08/26/2016, 07:31 PM
A lot of scientist say the sun has gotten hotter but you will never here that any where because that's not "politically correct". Keep you political views off the site. You can bet that those scientists won't get a dime from our government.
I've heard it. It's also factored into warming projections and doesn't account for all of the current warming.

Seriously, people need to stop thinking that climate scientists are idiots and that an armchair scientist can debunk what they do for a living by surfing the internet.

HoHum
08/26/2016, 08:56 PM
Only 99% are, right!

HippieSmell
08/26/2016, 09:20 PM
What?

thejuggernaut
08/26/2016, 09:53 PM
LOL...We have some true believers on our hands. Don't worry, vote for Hilary, she'll fix it. Global warming is the perfect progressive policy. It is the endless argument that requires no conclusive proof. It allows the people grasping for power to keep normal people segregated and fighting, while further centralizing power and money by enacting insane policies. Typically through the EPA, which breaks more than fixed BTW. For any "model" they put out, there is another that conflicts it. The only thing I can conclusively say about this "99%" of climate scientist is that history shows they have been 100% wrong. I also don't know where some of you are getting the number 99%. The 97% number I have heard of from years ago has been proven to be a farce and isn't true.

With all that said...

Do I think humans effect the climate? Probably

Is it catastrophic or irreversible? Probably not

Do I think we should try to come up with better energy alternatives in the future? For sure!

Do I think we should upturn our economy and put people out of work because of a set of theories and models that have become so corrupted and have so many holes poked in them that you can't tell what is real from what is a lie anymore? Absolutely not!!!

What do I think that anyone who says that the climate is changing irreversibly and that we are all going to die if we don't change how we power our lives this very moment? That they are very easily influenced by sensational BS from the media and the govt, or they are the ones doing the sensationalizing for power, money and political gain. Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler would be proud!!!!

Until then, I will run my AC as low as I want. Drive my old car that doesn't even have a catalytic converter, and fly airplanes that still run on leaded fuel! Although they are working on alternative unleaded fuels that will run in standard aircraft engines, and should be rolled out in the next few years.

HippieSmell
08/26/2016, 10:06 PM
LOL...We have some true believers on our hands. Don't worry, vote for Hilary, she'll fix it. Global warming is the perfect progressive policy. It is the endless argument that requires no conclusive proof. It allows the people grasping for power to keep normal people segregated and fighting, while further centralizing power and money by enacting insane policies. Typically through the EPA, which breaks more than fixed BTW. For any "model" they put out, there is another that conflicts it. The only thing I can conclusively say about this "99%" of climate scientist is that history shows they have been 100% wrong. I also don't know where some of you are getting the number 99%. The 97% number I have heard of from years ago has been proven to be a farce and isn't true.

With all that said...

Do I think humans effect the climate? Probably

Is it catastrophic or irreversible? Probably not

Do I think we should try to come up with better energy alternatives in the future? For sure!

Do I think we should upturn our economy and put people out of work because of a set of theories and models that have become so corrupted and have so many holes poked in them that you can't tell what is real from what is a lie anymore? Absolutely not!!!

What do I think that anyone who says that the climate is changing irreversibly and that we are all going to die if we don't change how we power our lives this very moment? That they are very easily influenced by sensational BS from the media and the govt, or they are the ones doing the sensationalizing for power, money and political gain. Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler would be proud!!!!

Until then, I will run my AC as low as I want. Drive my old car that doesn't even have a catalytic converter, and fly airplanes that still run on leaded fuel! Although they are working on alternative unleaded fuels that will run in standard aircraft engines, and should be rolled out in the next few years.
TL;DR: ignorant hyperbole.

You seem to have forgotten to present a scientific argument to contradict scientific issues.

HippieSmell
08/26/2016, 10:18 PM
LOL...We have some true believers on our hands.
I'd like to point out that thinking climate change is real is the opposite of belief because it's actually grounded in science and observation. The believers are those that believe all of the evidence is fabricated, that believe there's some vast conspiracy to take their money, that believe God won't allow this to happen because it doesn't fit some biblical narrative, or believe that everything will be OK no matter what. Those are the believers.

thejuggernaut
08/26/2016, 11:02 PM
That is the point. It's like religion. It is a belief system and is always something that is going to happen in the future that will never come to pass, so it is a never ending argument. If you think that you have conclusive evidence you are drinking the Koolaid. Even they know that. That is why they have been caught multiple times lying and tweaking the numbers to fit their POV. But honestly my post was just to try to get a rise out of people. But in all seriousness, we should all be good stewards of the environment, but with common sense solutions. I'll buy an electric car when I can charge it with ease while driving cross country, heck they have an 800 HP Tesla...I'll fly with unleaded fuel if the cost is reasonable when it comes out. I'll put solar panels on my home when it becomes close to economically viable. Note I said close, to me there is value in it to me, but it can't be double the price of current solutions.

There is a group of people who would say we should be banned from having reef tanks because we wreck eco systems. They are un-informed and don't understand that we have done more to understand the propagation and aquaculture of both corals and fishes.

HippieSmell
08/26/2016, 11:25 PM
That is the point. It's like religion. It is a belief system and is always something that is going to happen in the future that will never come to pass, so it is a never ending argument.
No, it's not like a religion. It's the opposite of religion. It's science.

Also, it's not something that's coming in the future. It's happening right now. Ice caps are melting, ocean levels are rising, temperature records are broken over and over. This is current, right now stuff that is being observed and measured, not predicted.

thejuggernaut
08/26/2016, 11:42 PM
Ice caps growing...

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

No one is saying that the climate isn't and won't continue to change. The argument is how much of it is man made and how much of it is cyclical. We have been through massive changes to cold, then hot and back again. But like I said, it's hard to prove the un-provable. You can have your theories, and opinions, but not your own truths.

HippieSmell
08/27/2016, 12:07 AM
Ice caps growing...

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

No one is saying that the climate isn't and won't continue to change. The argument is how much of it is man made and how much of it is cyclical. We have been through massive changes to cold, then hot and back again. But like I said, it's hard to prove the un-provable. You can have your theories, and opinions, but not your own truths.
That section of ice is getting thicker, but overall we're losing ice around the world, such as from Greenland. How else do you think sea levels are rising? Also, the increase in ice is due to more snow caused by moisture released from warmer waters.

Nice link, though. Did you happen to read the other articles on that page? Doesn't exactly support your argument, does it?

thejuggernaut
08/27/2016, 12:57 AM
What's my argument?

HippieSmell
08/27/2016, 10:35 AM
What's my argument?

I guess you're not really denying what's happening, you just think it isn't a big deal, which might actually be worse. It'd be like if a house were on fire. A climate change denier wouldn't believe it was on fire until they saw it with their own eyes. Once they did, they might grab a hose and help put it out. People like yourself will just sit and watch it burn because you have home insurance. There's no Earth insurance, unfortunately.

reef thief
08/27/2016, 02:43 PM
It isn't polite to talk about the sun when it isn't here to defend itself. STOP IT. Recorded history can mildly document shifts in climate and humans truly don't have the 100% on what has happened since the Earth was born. Sure Sunday school taught me that an asteroid came caused a flood and turned all of the dinosaurs gay. That's why they're not around. Maybe that's 100% true but probably not. It was before my time and I choose to live in the present. When I was on the Iran/Iraq border I heard accounts from the elderly describe a different environment from the one that exists and, yes, we can rule out modern warfare from destroying forests and lakes from that area because the environment turned barren before it happened. How does an existing generation recall such an acute change? Why do they describe such a drastic change in temp? It wasn't seasonal. It wasn't man made. It was just happening and in the end nature will figure out a compromise for survival. Unless we can stop it early which we won't. Leave BOB out of this.

HippieSmell
08/27/2016, 10:15 PM
I laughed at your dinosaur theory. Otherwise, I don't know what you're on about.

reef thief
08/28/2016, 09:53 AM
It's simple. We always say "don't believe everything you here in the media". Including historical data about climate. My point is that many can account for climate shift in one lifetime. Their own memory is better testimony than a scientist's theory. For example, would you want to learn about the moon from Wiki or from Buzz Aldrin? Would you want a class on giving birth from a male doctor or a high school educated mom with 6 kids?

HippieSmell
08/28/2016, 10:11 AM
The media isn't making this stuff up out of thin air. There are scientific studies that you can read if you're so inclined.

And no, a single person's memory of climate in one geographical area in one lifetime is nowhere near as reliable or useful as a historical climate study by climate scientists. Not to mention that there are actual measurements dating back a number of decades now. There's no reason to rely on anecdotal evidence from a person who is alive today.

reef thief
08/28/2016, 05:01 PM
One side of the media states that our climate is not changing. Another side says that it is. But somehow both sides have their facts straight? <----this...This right here is why messenger is the most secure and accurate form of communication. FOX news is the second. JK. The internet, University studies, and magazines are good for info on controlled studies but anyone at anytime could throw numbers on paper and call it a study. Everyday tens of thousands of Americans die from vaccines. There you have it. that's how many people died and also had a flu vax at some time in there life. I wish National Geographic would film a reality show about Japanese whaling crews and the struggles they face.

HippieSmell
08/28/2016, 05:14 PM
One side of the media states that our climate is not changing. Another side says that it is. But somehow both sides have their facts straight? <----this...This right here is why messenger is the most secure and accurate form of communication.
That's more an issue with our media. It's sort of customary to show both sides of a story or issue. This means that when there's a climate change expert on television, there will be a climate change denier on as well. This isn't actually how it should be, because deniers don't have equal footing in the scientific world, yet they're given the same amount of time in the media to sway public opinion.

I'll ask you this: since you don't want to rely on the media, who should we rely on? The only other source, in my mind, are the scientists. You ever wonder why oil companies don't fund actual research? Because they know the science will not be in their favor. So, they focus on public policy and public opinion, basically putting politicians and media personnel on their payroll.

Waylah
09/17/2016, 10:55 PM
I find it quite baffling to see an actual real live climate debate on a REEF forum. I live in Australia. Our famous reef is 50% dead, 97% bleached. The chemistry is so straight forward; I don't know why people are so set on conspiracy theories. Governments are the ones having difficulty accepting what scientist are telling them, they're not the ones pushing it. Here'a a nice way to get some perspective: (if nothing else, it's an interesting timeline of human history)
http://xkcd.com/1732/

BrianD
09/18/2016, 10:06 AM
Way too much political commentary on here to even attempt to clean this up.