Climate change must-watch/read


mappow

New member
Of course there's climate change. It changes constantly. He'll, it's been in constant change since day one. Not anything related to what we do though. More snake oil salesman.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Climate change....

The earth has seasons. Not just the yearly seasons of winter, spring, summer, and fall but also seasons of cold (ice age) and heat (dinosaur age) that span hundreds of thousands of years. Us short lived humans are either unable to understand that or are sneakily clever enough to try to use that to push an agenda.

Is there such a thing as global warming? And global cooling? Of course! Only a dolt would argue otherwise. But only someone with an agenda would try to blame a natural cycle onto mankind. Or worse yet ... try to blame it on cow farts and manure.

Link Removed

Livestock a major threat to environment
Remedies urgently needed
29 November 2006, Rome

-snip
When emissions from land use and land use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9 percent of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases. It generates 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2. Most of this comes from manure.

And it accounts for respectively 37 percent of all human-induced methane (23 times as warming as CO2), which is largely produced by the digestive system of ruminants, and 64 percent of ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.
-snip-

As we can clearly see the justification to push an ecological agenda using global warming as an excuse is just full of crap.
 

VT Patriot

Oldskibum
"The Sky is falling, the sky is falling.........." Quote Henny Penny.
Lets blame it all on the cows, lets all become vigans with our PITA nutcases.
 

CapGun

New member
People say that Religion is based on faith. "Climatechangeologists" practice the "climate Change" religion. Totally based on faith!
 

fuhr52

New member
The only science the climate change crowd has for proof is computer models. Computers programed by humans. This is called science? What a joke. Garbage in garbage out.
 

Stengun

New member
Howdy,

Of course there's climate change. It changes constantly. He'll, it's been in constant change since day one. Not anything related to what we do though. More snake oil salesman.

The latest thing is to call it Regional Climate Change.

Sure, Modern Man has had ZERO effect on Out climate, well, according to the people that want to pollute Our environment so they can make more profit.

In 1950 there 2.54B people in the World. Today We are banging on the door of having 8B.

Today there are something like 10,000Xs more vehicles and square yards of asphalt than there were in 1950.

But We haven't effected the environment.

Paul
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Howdy,



The latest thing is to call it Regional Climate Change.

Sure, Modern Man has had ZERO effect on Out climate, well, according to the people that want to pollute Our environment so they can make more profit.

In 1950 there 2.54B people in the World. Today We are banging on the door of having 8B.

Today there are something like 10,000Xs more vehicles and square yards of asphalt than there were in 1950.

But We haven't effected the environment.

Paul
Don't forget the cow farts and manure.
 

telpinaro

New member
One thing I don't understand... Barring politicians being insane, why is "believing" (quotation marks because this is doesn't seem to me a matter of faith) in global warming a bad thing? Oh no... people want to "be green" and take care of the earth, and not pollute more than they have to! Terrible! We can agree, at least, that living in polluted air isn't exactly healthy.

Isn't that what we're supposed to do? The planet is a gift. I remember being appalled after hearing a politician say that it doesn't matter, God will come back before we destroy the earth. 'Cause apparently that's what we should do with gifts from God; He won't mind if we go for using it up rather than taking care of it as best we can.

Sorry, it just bugs me. I don't care what anyone thinks about global warming. I just think we should care about what we do with this place... kind of thought that was part of our job as human beings. Heck, my lungs would appreciate it, too! They aren't fans of cow farts. Too stinky. :wink:
 

Kennydale

New member
To those that believe in climate scam. Good luck. No sympathy from me. They have been proven to be liars.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
One thing I don't understand... Barring politicians being insane, why is "believing" (quotation marks because this is doesn't seem to me a matter of faith) in global warming a bad thing? Oh no... people want to "be green" and take care of the earth, and not pollute more than they have to! Terrible! We can agree, at least, that living in polluted air isn't exactly healthy.

Isn't that what we're supposed to do? The planet is a gift. I remember being appalled after hearing a politician say that it doesn't matter, God will come back before we destroy the earth. 'Cause apparently that's what we should do with gifts from God; He won't mind if we go for using it up rather than taking care of it as best we can.

Sorry, it just bugs me. I don't care what anyone thinks about global warming. I just think we should care about what we do with this place... kind of thought that was part of our job as human beings. Heck, my lungs would appreciate it, too! They aren't fans of cow farts. Too stinky. :wink:
It is our responsibility to take care of this ball of mud called the Earth. But there is a very big difference between taking care of the earth and using the natural cycle of the Earth's seasons (in hundreds of thousands of years between winter... think ice age... and summer... think back when dinosaurs ruled) to push an agenda of making money off alternate sources of energy.

Of course humans have an impact upon the Earth. To think otherwise is to ignore facts. But the amount of contribution to warming the Earth that humans cause pales to insignificance when compared to what happens when the sun burps. Does that mean we shouldn't do things to protect an environment that is healthy for life on Earth? Of course not! We should protect the ball of mud that we need to survive as a species.. but we should be able to discern what is scientific fact and the BS spewed by those who just want to use what amounts to humans having a very small influence on the Earth's temperature to push their agendas.
 
B

Bikenut

Guest
Not believing in science is a conservative attribute

There is science and there is manipulated junk science used to push an agenda.

Global warming, along with global cooling, has been going on ever since the earth coalesced into a ball of mud. And that will continue long after humans either figure out how to not have any effect on the climate or humanity itself disappears.

Wind power. Has anyone done any scientific studies to discover how those windmills slowing the air changes how far the wind blows seeds? Or changing how far the wind blows might change weather patterns? Or if slowing the air in one area that is rushing in to fill a low pressure in another area causes air from somewhere else to move in and try to balance that pressure difference and that might affect... gasp... global warming? Or even if that has any effect at all? Or have folks only shortsightedly thought about how wind is clean energy? One thing you can be sure of.... someone is thinking about how much money they can make selling windmills... or how much political capitol they can amass selling the idea that clean energy will solve the manufactured problem of man made global warming.

Solar power. Has anyone done any scientific studies to discover how covering up the earth changes the amount of heat radiated by the sun warmed earth and what effect that might have on weather patterns like not warming the air to produce a low pressure area to create wind and how that might affect... gasp... global warming? Or even if that has any effect at all? Or have folks only shortsightedly thought about how solar is clean energy? One thing you can be sure of.... someone is thinking about how much money they can make selling solar panels... or how much political capitol they can amass selling the idea that clean energy will solve the manufactured problem of man made global warming.

Yes man contributes to global warming but is his contribution as big a problem that requires such a drastic expenditure as folks are being led to believe? Or is man's contribution to global warming being used to manufacture a problem to justify drastic expenditures?

Beware when a politician or a businessman starts talking about doomsday scenarios while offering the solution that he will gladly provide for just a few (millions of) dollars.
 

SigDaddy

New member
There is science and there is manipulated junk science used to push an agenda.

Global warming, along with global cooling, has been going on ever since the earth coalesced into a ball of mud. And that will continue long after humans either figure out how to not have any effect on the climate or humanity itself disappears.

Wind power. Has anyone done any scientific studies to discover how those windmills slowing the air changes how far the wind blows seeds? Or changing how far the wind blows might change weather patterns? Or if slowing the air in one area that is rushing in to fill a low pressure in another area causes air from somewhere else to move in and try to balance that pressure difference and that might affect... gasp... global warming? Or even if that has any effect at all? Or have folks only shortsightedly thought about how wind is clean energy? One thing you can be sure of.... someone is thinking about how much money they can make selling windmills... or how much political capitol they can amass selling the idea that clean energy will solve the manufactured problem of man made global warming.

Solar power. Has anyone done any scientific studies to discover how covering up the earth changes the amount of heat radiated by the sun warmed earth and what effect that might have on weather patterns like not warming the air to produce a low pressure area to create wind and how that might affect... gasp... global warming? Or even if that has any effect at all? Or have folks only shortsightedly thought about how solar is clean energy? One thing you can be sure of.... someone is thinking about how much money they can make selling solar panels... or how much political capitol they can amass selling the idea that clean energy will solve the manufactured problem of man made global warming.

Yes man contributes to global warming but is his contribution as big a problem that requires such a drastic expenditure as folks are being led to believe? Or is man's contribution to global warming being used to manufacture a problem to justify drastic expenditures?

Beware when a politician or a businessman starts talking about doomsday scenarios while offering the solution that he will gladly provide for just a few (millions of) dollars.

All good points, but one that's often missed is that even if we implement all of the changes to "save the earth" it will have little impact. Why? Because we're not the big offenders. China and Russian are the big offenders. Start with them and see how that works out for you.
 

telpinaro

New member
All good points, but one that's often missed is that even if we implement all of the changes to "save the earth" it will have little impact. Why? Because we're not the big offenders. China and Russian are the big offenders. Start with them and see how that works out for you.

Or wait until China smothers itself. Shouldn't take too much longer... Big cities have to televise the sunrise because nobody can see it.
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
One thing I don't understand... Barring politicians being insane, why is "believing" (quotation marks because this is doesn't seem to me a matter of faith) in global warming a bad thing?

First, it absolutely is a matter of faith, and even the scientists who promulgate the so-called "settled science" meme speak of it as such. The politicians to which you refer are merely disciples and/or users of the faith-based "settled science" to further their political agendas, certainly not to "save the planet."

I don't know how old you are, telpinaro, or if you followed the "Climate Gate" scandal that broke in 2009, but the guys running the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University themselves used typically religious-sounding words such as "deniers," "witch-hunt," and "climate-change-agnostics" within the same email archive that busted them as agenda-driven hacks bent on "using Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline," purposely colluding with each other to delete large numbers of emails that were part of a long-standing attempt to review their work (per the "scientific method") via FOIA requests as-mandated that they supply by the law in Great Britain at the time, and there were several other non-science-based rationales employed, some illegal and some just obfuscatory blocking maneuvers to keep secret their work that was the #1 source for the UN's IPCC findings about the science being "settled." I can't remember every single thing they did, but if I had to, I could search archives of things I personally wrote about the scandal that go into depth about how their agendas were served in their work much more than any "science." Here's just a small sampling of Tom Wigley and Phil Jones, Jones being the lead researcher at the time, and Wigley being one of his subordinates at the CRU:

Wigley:
“If I were on the greenhouse deniers’ side, I
would be inclined to focus on the wide range of paleo results and the differences
between them as an argument for dismissing them all.”

Jones:
“Olive Heffernan at Nature expects the Nature blog site to be hijacked by the deniers.
She also said she would put up an expanded article, but I can’t see this.
Cheers
Phil”


Jones again:
We talked with E&E;News on this latest maneuver by the ideologues at CEI and contrarian
scientist Pat Michaels and posted on October 8
<[2]http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/cei-epa-endangerment-petiti
on-oct09>: CEI global warming denialists try another gambit seeking to derail EPA
endangerment finding.

The whole unit was polluted with Climevangelists, and their own language in an archive that they tried everything to keep out of the hands of scientists who would actually put their science to the real scientific method to scrutinize for proper methodology and conclusion-making was where the "believers" and "deniers" memes came from.

Oh no... people want to "be green" and take care of the earth, and not pollute more than they have to! Terrible! We can agree, at least, that living in polluted air isn't exactly healthy.

The climate change "debate" is not about clean air. It's about political agendas. Just look at the source of the video in the OP here in this thread. It's from ThinkProgress.com. Is Think Progress a political site or a scientific site?

Sorry, it just bugs me. I don't care what anyone thinks about global warming. I just think we should care about what we do with this place... kind of thought that was part of our job as human beings. Heck, my lungs would appreciate it, too! They aren't fans of cow farts. Too stinky. :wink:

Your own lifestyle could be in the cross-hairs of the Climevangelists. You have a bit of acreage that you "exploit" to feed your horses. Chances are you have a truck and trailer to take your horses to the vet, or to ride in more remote areas, but whether you do or don't, many who enjoy the kind of life that you've set up for yourself do, and the Climevangelists won't distinguish between your horse farts and exhaust from getting them around and the cow farts that contribute because mankind enjoys eating the very gifts from God that can be harvested from working (or "exploiting") the land.

Here's a great article that goes into detail about why the Climate Gate email archive is so significant in exposing the whole "discipline" as fraudulent, unreliable (at best), with many made-up and manipulated facts and figures underlying the data that most environmental legislation and regulation is based on in America (as well as around the world). The article is long and somewhat technical, but you're smart enough to follow it, I'm sure. I'd copy and paste it here, but hardly anyone would read it, and I figure if someone won't just click on a link, they also won't read it if it's copied and pasted here.

Blues
 

telpinaro

New member
First, it absolutely is a matter of faith, and even the scientists who promulgate the so-called "settled science" meme speak of it as such. The politicians to which you refer are merely disciples and/or users of the faith-based "settled science" to further their political agendas, certainly not to "save the planet."

Exactly why I said "barring politicians!" I'm all for saving the planet, reducing dependence on non-renewable things, etc... provided they don't do it by legislation that screws people over. Which is what they do.

I don't know how old you are, telpinaro, or if you followed the "Climate Gate" scandal that broke in 2009, but the guys running the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia University themselves used typically religious-sounding words such as "deniers," "witch-hunt," and "climate-change-agnostics" within the same email archive that busted them as agenda-driven hacks bent on "using Mike's Nature trick to hide the decline," purposely colluding with each other to delete large numbers of emails that were part of a long-standing attempt to review their work (per the "scientific method") via FOIA requests as-mandated that they supply by the law in Great Britain at the time, and there were several other non-science-based rationales employed, some illegal and some just obfuscatory blocking maneuvers to keep secret their work that was the #1 source for the UN's IPCC findings about the science being "settled." I can't remember every single thing they did, but if I had to, I could search archives of things I personally wrote about the scandal that go into depth about how their agendas were served in their work much more than any "science." Here's just a small sampling of Tom Wigley and Phil Jones, Jones being the lead researcher at the time, and Wigley being one of his subordinates at the CRU:

The whole unit was polluted with Climevangelists, and their own language in an archive that they tried everything to keep out of the hands of scientists who would actually put their science to the real scientific method to scrutinize for proper methodology and conclusion-making was where the "believers" and "deniers" memes came from.

I remember, but as soon as all the language that you referred to started up, I ignored them. What's the point of science that isn't science any more? I had a lot on my plate during most of that, so I had no time for anything trying to turn science in to some psuedo-science-belief-thing. Perhaps I should have said it shouldn't be a matter of faith or belief. It's either a fact or it isn't.


The climate change "debate" is not about clean air. It's about political agendas. Just look at the source of the video in the OP here in this thread. It's from ThinkProgress.com. Is Think Progress a political site or a scientific site?


Your own lifestyle could be in the cross-hairs of the Climevangelists. You have a bit of acreage that you "exploit" to feed your horses. Chances are you have a truck and trailer to take your horses to the vet, or to ride in more remote areas, but whether you do or don't, many who enjoy the kind of life that you've set up for yourself do, and the Climevangelists won't distinguish between your horse farts and exhaust from getting them around and the cow farts that contribute because mankind enjoys eating the very gifts from God that can be harvested from working (or "exploiting") the land.

Here's a great article that goes into detail about why the Climate Gate email archive is so significant in exposing the whole "discipline" as fraudulent, unreliable (at best), with many made-up and manipulated facts and figures underlying the data that most environmental legislation and regulation is based on in America (as well as around the world). The article is long and somewhat technical, but you're smart enough to follow it, I'm sure. I'd copy and paste it here, but hardly anyone would read it, and I figure if someone won't just click on a link, they also won't read it if it's copied and pasted here.

Blues

Yes, it certainly would be! My ideal life wouldn't, but I'm not a multi-millionaire. If I had a choice, I'd be in the middle of nowhere with geothermal heat, windmill, manual well pump, animals such as dogs, cats, horses, and maybe a goat or two (both for practical purposes as well as pleasure), gardens... be as self-sustaining as possible. Not because of any climate change scares (who doesn't remember the supposed ice age we were heading towards?), or even end-of-the-world scares, but because I want to. And because on the off chance of everything going to h3ll in a handbasket, we'd be better off. Be able to bug in rather than out.

I'm not actually arguing for or against global warming here... just not understanding the animosity towards those who choose to act as though global warming was real (BESIDES politicians and other idiots who act on "faith" rather than trying to learn and understand). I do know several people who are skeptical, but prefer to err on the side of better for the planet as they can. Consider me a skeptic... I haven't done enough research on either side to be able to say where I land yet. I don't "pick sides" until I know exactly what's on each. After the interesting (though still in early days) studies showing that the more intelligent a person is, the more likely they are to skew and even unconsciously make deliberate (yes, they go together here) mathematical errors to make data prove what they believe... I'm very careful to make [email protected] sure I'm right before I make any claims.

So! Thanks for the link! I'll bookmark it for when I've finished researching cloud computing security issues for a paper. I hate having to cite sources on stuff I already know.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,436
Messages
623,656
Members
74,274
Latest member
Jlynn610
Top