Home › Forums › Political Corner › Global Warming or Not
Tagged: Global Warming, polar ice caps
This topic contains 83 replies, has 34 voices, and was last updated by 
Rennie 3 years, 11 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Forget ‘On Record,’ 2014 May Have Been Warmest Year In Last 5,000 http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/01/18/forget-on-record-2014-may-have-been-warmest-year-in-last-5000/
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2915061/Nasa-climate-scientists-said-2014-warmest-year-record-38-sure-right.html#ixzz3PDI2jUEWI think what they are really after is yet another way to control our lives, make us pay taxes, just to general government things to us.
Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?
The only issue I have with global warming is whether or not humans have any real influence on it. I don’t believe we do and that nature is simply going through it’s cycles. If human’s have minimal to no impact at all then move on to something else instead of using it as a tool for oppression.
The Children of Doom... Doom's Children. They told my lord the way to the Mountain of Power. They told him to throw down his sword and return to the Earth... Ha! Time enough for the Earth in the grave.Humans affecting climate cycles is a f~~~ing hoax and embarrassingly stupid. I’ll post proof in the coming days but I’m too hammered on tequila to attempt it tonight. Seriously. Not kidding. Archer-style not kidding.
It’s actually not. I’m a chemist in college and I can tell you that different chemicals in air block infrared rays from leaving the atmosphere. Idiots like Al Gore have screwed up a lot with the sensationalism, but the science is there.
Look up molecular bonding vibrational frequencies, infrared heat trapping, and IR spectrum stuff. Too deep to go into here, but basically different types of bonds absorb different energy spectra.
Specify. All the models the U.N. has relied on for their BS reports are wrong and have been wrong. Their models predicted warming when before this year the past 18 years or so showed no sign of warming – how is that possible if their models are correct? They’re full of s~~~, this whole thing is a scam. According to them, CO2 levels should have shown far greater impact due to humans’ actions but it hasn’t. I can tell you as a past biologist/geologist that this is total bulls~~~ – go back in history and you’ll find out the Earth has gone through much hotter and colder cycles than we’ve seen in modern times, all without man impacting the climate. Explain the Little Ice Age in the Middle Ages. The sun is the most important factor in the change in climate, not CO2, regardless of how desperately the proponents of this bulls~~~ hoax have tried to change the topic from ‘man-caused global warming’ to ‘climate change’. Climate always changes. What do you think the last Ice Age was about? It came about when man was not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and it went away without man pumping CO2 into the atmosphere – how is that possible, do you think?
Global Warming is a f~~~ing cult, it is not science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age
Go here for more proof – college is the last place these days you can learn anything remotely resembling the truth, IMHO:
An MIT professor of meteorology is dismissing global-warming alarmists as a discredited “cult” whose members are becoming more hysterical as emerging evidence continues to contradict their beliefs. During an appearance on this writer’s radio show Monday, MIT Professor emeritus Richard Lindzen discussed the religious nature of the movement.
“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!” Lindzen, 74, has issued calm dismissals of warmist apocalypse, reducing his critics to sputtering rage.
Last week, government agencies including NASA announced that 2014 was the “hottest year” in “recorded history,” as The New York Times put it in an early edition. Last year has since been demoted by the Times to the hottest “since record-keeping began in 1880.” But that may not be true. Now the same agencies have acknowledged that there’s only a 38 percent chance that 2014 was the hottest year on record. And even if it was, it was only by two-100ths of a degree. Lindzen scoffs at the public-sector-generated hysteria, which included one warmist blogger breathlessly writing that the heat record had been “shattered.”
“Seventy percent of the earth is oceans, we can’t measure those temperatures very well. They can be off a half a degree, a quarter of a degree. Even two-10ths of a degree of change would be tiny but two-100ths is ludicrous. Anyone who starts crowing about those numbers shows that they’re putting spin on nothing.” Last week, after scoffing at Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a Senate vote on global warming, Lindzen was subjected to another barrage of diatribes. At his listed MIT phone number, Prof. Lindzen received a typical anonymous call:
“I think people like you should actually be in jail,” the male caller told him, “because you must know where this is all leading now… the people you support and take your money from to make these outrageously anti-human comments (also ‘know’)… In other words, you’re a sociopath!” Lindzen chuckled when the voicemail was replayed. This writer asked him if, as has been alleged in some of the warmist blogs, he is taking money from the energy industry.
“Oh, it would be great!” he said with a laugh. “You have all these people, the Gores and so on, making hundreds of millions of dollars on this, Exxon Mobil giving $100 million to Stanford for people who are working on promoting this hysteria. The notion that the fossil-fuel industry cares – they don’t. As long as they can pass the costs on to you, it’s a new profit center.”
Lindzen said he was fortunate to have gained tenure just as the “climate change” movement was beginning, because now non-believers are often ostracized in academia. In his career he has watched the hysteria of the 1970’s over “global cooling” morph into “global warming.” “They use climate to push an agenda. But what do you have left when global warming falls apart? Global normalcy? We have to do something about ‘normalcy?’” As for CO2, Lindzen said that until recently, periods of greater warmth were referred to as “climate optimum.” Optimum is derived from a Latin word meaning “best.” “Nobody ever questioned that those were the good periods. All of a sudden you were able to inculcate people with the notion that you have to be afraid of warmth.”
The warmists’ ultimate solution is to reduce the standard of living for most of mankind. That proposition is being resisted most vigorously by nations with developing economies such as China and India, both of which have refused to sign on to any restrictive, Obama-backed climate treaties. Lindzen understands their reluctance. “Anything you do to impoverish people, and certainly all the planned policies will impoverish people, is actually costing lives. But the environmental movement has never cared about that.”
Anonymous42Global f~~~ing warming! Yehaaa!!!!! Why has our solar system co incited with glacial melting, what, my exhaust pipe is melting the polar regions of Mars and warming the rest of the planets, I’d like to take Al Gore on a long trip in my garage. Global warming theory=Global Control… Mt. Pinatubo’s eruption released more sulfur dioxide than the entire 200 yr. industrial revolution, look around you, yesterday’s coal is today’s trees. I read a study regarding the extraction of sulfur from diesel, the resulting mandate has lowered sulfur, some farmers are now having to add sulfur to their fertilizer programs…. GLOBAL WARMING ENTHUSIASTS WILL HAVE “YOUR ASS IN A JAR”! They’ll make a law against farting guaranteed.
And the propagandists never stop – this is sickenly embarrassing, now they want to use Disney characters to convince children of this hoax – hey, why not get Santa and the Easter Bunny to validate it too???
http://dailycaller.com/2015/01/23/feds-enlist-disney-to-make-a-frozen-film-about-the-melting-arctic/
How the EPA decided to target Americans to swallow this BS:
“The EPA memo even says to use people’s children as a way to build up support for their efforts to fight global warming and ramp up clean air and water regulations.”
Most of the global warming thing is indeed BS, but climate change in general is happening, though slight. Whether or not we agree on the amount of change, pumping chemicals in the air and water is never a good thing. I don’t think everyone should stop driving, but overconsumption and materialism are a problem. The tallest point in my county is a landfill. There’s no reason we should have to produce so much garbage.
I think the bigger issue is consumerism. All modern problems derive from that. People need to learn that owning things won’t lead to happiness. I personally can’t fill a 60L hiking backpack with everything I own, and I found the less I had, the happier I was. I’m not sure it can be fixed. Most people seem naturally greedy, but the massive advertising makes it worse.
MGTOW philosophy fits perfectly with this. Not following the crowd and buying the latest thing, women are especially bad at this. I helped a friend and his wife move years ago, and it took 12 hours with the largest Uhaul they could get, and it would be worse now. Most people own way more than they could ever need or use. Something to think about.
rainydaykid You had an opinion that kinda flip-flopped in the course of five days. I happen to agree with GoneGalt on this point: college is the last place these days you can learn anything remotely resembling the truth. Intelligence is the ability to entertain a thought but not accept it. I have only high school diploma but 52 years of educating myself. I always listen to others reasons for believing what they believe. So I don’t make myself a slave to my own beliefs. Kudos to you for listening to these guys and checking out the links.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
Ah, I agree with harpo, rainy – kudos – and consumerism is an issue you should start another topic on if you’re interested, it’s not related to climate change at all.
Just some more science about man’s contribution to CO2 vs. that from natural sources:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html
Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby, Professor and Climate Chair at Macquarie University, Australia explains in a recent, highly-recommended lecture presented at Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg, Germany, why man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or climate change. Dr. Salby demonstrates:
(among other of his points): 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural sources, only 4% is man-made.
(and this one): Dr. Richard Feynman’s quote “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the data, it’s wrong” applies to the theory of man-made global warming.
For me, the most obvious sign that the theory of man causing climate change (used to be global warming until it was shown no warming has been occurring the past 18 years) is a flat-out hoax is because of the highlighted section below:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/397308/apocalypse-soonish-redux-kevin-d-williamson
The genius of the global-warming alarmists — and it is a kind of genius — is that there are no events that are inconsistent with their theology. If the winters are warmer and there are fewer storms, then that is as predicted. But if the winters are colder and there are more severe blizzards, then that also “is consistent with” their model of what is happening in the world. Thus the silly spectacle of Bill Nye the Politics Guy, noted scientific authority Andrew Cuomo, the hallelujah choir at MSNBC, et al. blaming the recent blizzard that walloped the northeast on global warming. When there is an unusually cold day and climate skeptics make their usual wisecracks (“Har-har, global warming, harrumph harrumph, etc.”), these same people roll their eyes and declare that you cannot conflate weather and climate, that no individual weather event should be taken to give us any indication of what’s happening globally. But if there is a single event that happens to coincide with their story — and basically all weather events do — then they trumpet that it is “consistent with” their theory. If both warmer, milder winters and colder, bitterer winters are consistent with the model, then the model isn’t a very useful one. Complex adaptive systems — weather systems, markets, biological evolution — exhibit behavior that is not predictable, even in principle.
Global warming in a nutshell — scroll down to the temperature chart:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/07/the_global_warming_hoax_how_soon_we_forget.htmlSociety asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?
And of course the trendy know-nothings in Seattle, in order to reduce greenhouse gases in the belief that this hoax is actual fact, are now mandating the food police to literally sort through your garbage and fine you for throwing away food, and you will have a scarlet letter on your trash can after the fact so that your nosy f~~~ing neighbors know that you are violating Mother Earth. And lest you think it’s just Seattle, the propagandists at the EPA are embarking down the same stupid f~~~ing road (you vill comply or else!!!) ….
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/curtis-kalin/seattle-fine-residents-throwing-food-garbage
In an attempt to shame residents of their city, a new Seattle law will levy a fine on homes that do not properly sort food out of their garbage. Emblazoned with a red citation tag, violators will start to be fined anywhere from $1-$50 in July. For now, Seattle residents will be publicly shamed by the ‘Scarlet Letter’-like tags. “I’m sure neighbors are going to see these on their other neighbors’ cans,” says Rodney Watkins, a lead driver for Recology CleanScapes, a waste contractor for the city. He’s on the front lines of enforcing these rules.
The ultimate goal of the law is to boost composting while reducing greenhouse gasses. Food waste is both an economic and environmental burden. Transporting the waste, especially for distances as far as Seattle does, is costly. So too is allowing it to sit out in the open, where it produces methane, one of the most harmful greenhouses gases, as it rots. The second largest component of landfills in the United States is organic waste, and landfills are the single largest source of methane gas.
The EPA has already begun a campaign to achieve laws similar to Seattle’s.
<p class=”MsoNormal”>The outstanding question remains: what purview is it of government to act as people’s trash nanny?</p>
My opinion hasn’t really flip flopped. The consumerism thing is related to pollution. As far as not being able to learn anything in college, I still feel that the “hard” sciences are an exception to this, chemistry, biology, geology, ect.
Unfortunately, many of the links seemed like pseudoscience. I haven’t had the time to look at all of them in detail, yet.
I was educated as a physicist. Additionally, I’m an expert in simulation; it’s been my stock in trade for forty years. What the global-warming flacksters – I call them warmistas – claim offends me on both counts.
First, the Earth is a complex system that embeds many feedback mechanisms. Changes to the chemical balance of the atmosphere don’t occur in isolation from all other effects and consequences. For example, one of the consequences of a rebalancing of the atmosphere’s constituent parts is a change in the albedo: the percent of incident solar energy that’s reflected back into space. Though this is a hard thing to measure, even from low Earth orbit, it’s nevertheless a part of the energy dynamics of the planet – and it is neglected by the warmistas.
Second, the Sun is a mildly variable star. Its output varies by at least 2% from its mean. (That is, if the Sun’s mean energy output per unit time – astrophysicists call that the “solar constant” – is X, then its observed minimum is about 98% of X and its observed maximum is about 102% of X.) That’s what we mean by the “solar cycle,” though visible aspects such as flares and sunspots get more popular attention than the solar constant itself. As solar input is the principal driver of conditions in the Earth’s atmosphere, that variability should be accounted for in predictions of global mean temperatures – but it isn’t.
Third, the warmistas don’t have anything but simulations to present to us – and their simulations have proved unable to predict anything about global temperatures. They’ve been wrong even when fed historical data and challenged to predict subsequently-observed fluctuations in global temperatures. This has led to the practice of “adjusting” and “culling” the data – practices that would invalidate the warmistas’ claims in the eyes of any reputable scientist.
Fourth, we have completed an 18-year period in which the global mean temperature has remained constant to within the limits of precision of measurement. How that could possibly be interpreted as “global warming” defies my colorful and exceedingly active imagination.
Fifth, if your data is sound and your experiments are reproducible, you don’t need to shout down those who disagree with you. The warmistas have been so relentless about slandering and vilifying dissenters – including dissenters who are recognized figures in climatology and meteorology – that it’s clear that they have no confidence that their data and methods would stand up to scrutiny.
Any intellectually honest man – no need to be an actual scientist for this! – would know that this is a sign of fraud: the warmistas have strained to the utmost to keep their data and the algorithms in their simulations secret. That is the diametric opposite of scientific practice, which requires that all data be open and that all claims be reproducible by disinterested others.
For those reasons and others of a more technical nature, I dismiss them.
Albedo is taken into effect, and currently represents about 30% of the reflection value. As far as the 18 year constant, that is new. Everything I have heard and seen points to a global temp increase of 0.6 degrees C in the last 30 years.
There’s nothing technical about your link. All I see is some warmed over Republican horses~~~. The guy wouldn’t know what a scientific hypothesis was if it was right in front of him. Reminds me of most of the “scientific” bulls~~~ on creationist websites.
There is a lot of hype in Global Warming as a “movement”, but most of the people that deny any change in the earth’s temp know f~~~ all about chemistry, which is where most of the evidence lies. There is a thing called positive and negative feedback, a change can be self reinforcing.
Good post, fporretto!
When I have more time, rainy, I’ll put together a lot of links showing the utter bulls~~~ that global warming is, IMHO. As I said before, a theory which claims that ANY change in climate is proof of itself is a political hoax, in this case proving that man-caused processes are responsible for the warming. You apparently ignored the fact that only 4% of CO2 emissions on Earth are from man – it’s not Republican horses~~~. Look up in the sky during the day on a cloudless day – that big shiny orb drives the overall climate as well as the orbit of the Earth at any point during the year.
Well, here’s something hilarious – while the IPCC ‘report’ that started all this nonsense is completely flawed and dishonest (I’ll explain why in my later post), here’s what the IPCC itself concluded in a 2014 report (the UN is a hopelessly corrupt institution):
Previous reports – notably the hugely influential 2006 Stern Review – have put the costs to the global economy caused by ‘climate change’ at between 5 and 20 percent of world GDP. But the latest estimates, to be published by Working Group II of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report, say that a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures by the end of the century will cost the world economy between just 0.2 and 2 percent of its GDP. If the lower estimate is correct, then all it would take is an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent (currently it’s around 3 percent) for the economic costs of climate change to be wiped out within a month. This admission by the IPCC will come as a huge blow to those alarmists – notably the Stern Review’s author but also including everyone from the Prince of Wales to Al Gore – who argue that costly intervention now is our only hope if we are to stave off the potentially disastrous effects of climate change.
One thing you can absolutely count on from a warmista is personal insults and aspersions. Also, I am not a Republican, but then, you can also count on imputations of politically-motivated insincerity from warmistas. Their thesis is utterly without foundation, so they have to retreat to ad hominems.
Here’s something else you’ll never get from a warmista: Answers to these questions:
- What is the optimum global mean temperature? How did you arrive at that result? What criteria of goodness did you apply?
- What is the current global mean temperature? How do you know?
- How wide are the error bars around your measurements and predictions?
- How do you account for changes in the placement and precision of the majority of temperature measuring devices over the past forty years?
- Why are you so confident that “tree ring data” provide precise measures of regional temperature? Do you have error bars for those claims?
- How do your models account for the Medieval Warm Period?
- Why did models founded on the very same assumptions and historical measurements predict worldwide cooling as recently as 1975?
- What are the tradeoffs between attempting to control the global mean temperature and attempting to adjust to any fluctuations in it?
- Were an increase in global mean temperature demonstrated to have beneficial effects for human society, would you still demand political intervention in response to it?
- Why have you attempted so vigorously to silence those who dissent from your claims and deny them access to your data, your models, and recognized channels of publication for their researches?
- Got anything to say about Michael Mann’s “Hockey stick?”
- What about the infamous “ClimateGate” data breach from East Anglia, and the insider report on bad faith within the “Global warming” advocacy community?
The claims and methods of the warmistas remind me of nothing so much as Rene Blondlot and his “N-rays.”
Oil companies are spending billions to protect their interests. Al Gore and his hype don’t help from the other side, either.
The statement I made about the blog post was made because you presented it as technical and scientific, when it was neither.
I think most of it is indeed overhyped, people are nothing if not adaptable. I just don’t want to see what a 120 degree day feels like in TN with our humidity. I guess my main argument comes from the chemistry side. I am speaking mainly of the overall picture, not just climate change. I don’t see how people think we can dump billions of tons of chemicals into the air, water, and land, and suffer no ill effects from it. The climate change aspect only seems to address one part of this.
Galt, I have read over most of your links posted here, and they all seem to be really right wing blog posts that are incredibly biased.
The biggest thing I take from the whole debate is not to politicize stuff. The left saying we are all going to burn to death if we don’t drown first from melting icebergs and republicans saying nothing is wrong while they take fat oil subsidies, and other rich corporations that are trying to run this country for the wealthy and not in the best interest of all.
Read the data and decide for yourself. Blog posts can’t do that. Honestly, the whole issue is hard to pinpoint. Things are happening, but it is hard to say what the extent is. I still stand by the bigger issue of pollution, in any form.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
