This topic contains 48 replies, has 12 voices, and was last updated by 
John Park 1 year, 7 months ago.
-
Posts
-
So, we are all here for similar reasons. I’ll through this out there as a talking point for our huge SHTF moment. There are other topics here that are caused by ACC. The link below explains the temperature rise we face in the very near future. The largest impact this will have is our ability, or in the case of rapid temperature rising, inability to grow food at the massive rates done now. Plants can’t adjust quick enough to rapid temperature change and fail. Crop failures are happening around the world at increasing percentages. The year 2100 is BS. Sea level rise is BS to an extent also. They are distractions to our real problems happening now. Check it out. There’s way more info on this also, so I look forward to responses.
-
In my life (and I’m now retired) I have observed no climate change. Zero. Things are exactly the same as when I was a toddler. Estimates are that the Earth’s temperature has risen by 1.8℃ in the last hundred years. So, no worries. The concerns are overblown.
I’ve found the argument for global cooling to be at least as strong as for global warming since the sun appears to be entering a quiet period the like of which has brought on mini ice ages in previous centuries. The sun is far-and-away the biggest player in the climate change arena. Since climate change has been embraced by highly partisan political organizations, it’s clearly not something we should take too seriously.
-
I do agree with you that severe food shortages are likely, but not for the reason you’ve given. The planet’s biggest problem is overpopulation – and it is the primary cause of deforestation, acid rain, oceanic dead spots, species die-offs, hunger, water shortages, energy shortages, pollution, war, epidemic, ozone hole expansion and a dozen other calamities, real and supposed, including climate change. Overpopulation WILL lead to food shortages even if no other problems manifest themselves. IMO, our dependence on petroleum-derived fertilizers is not sustainable. If Peak Oil proves to be real, most of us are going to starve.
-
My belief is that “climate change” is cyclical. We’ve seen solar minimums and solar maximums throughout history and it has, quite reasonably, affected the weather. This affects growing seasons, wildlife, and humans every single time. Unfortunately, some people have figured out how to cash in on something as old as time.
This doesn’t mean that I hate the environment and go out and pollute without a care in the world. But, respectfully to the OP, carbon credits and all of that baloney are simply a cash cow and a way to make people fearful.
-
The earth becoming warmer is not a problem. Plants and animals have adapted to climate changes for millions of years. The expectation of the earth not changing is totally outside of known science.
Dramatic climate warming would be an answer to the to “over population” theory nobody talks about anymore because abortions were legalised in the 70s. So much unusable land masses would be exposed people will just move. Better climates in places like Greenland and a Siberia will provide plenty of space for the population.
Over population is not going to cause starvation. The reason there is starvation is because people don’t want to work and particularly on a farm digging in the dirt. The task of growing food has been shifted to smaller and smaller groups of people over time. People will starve because they expect someone else to do the work. If we made farming mandatory to receive welfare benefits; provided the land seed and equipment hardly anyone would be on welfare and few would be farming.
Somewhat of a problem is the amount of arable land converted to non-agricultural uses. However that is a land use issue that can be reversed.
If the earth is cooling that presents huge problems because of the loss of arable land.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
74.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
There has been no appreciable global temperature trend for the last 100 years, warmer or cooler, other than a very slight cooling trend. There have been warm periods and cooler periods that occur cyclically, driven primarily by solar activity. It was much warmer in the US in the 1930’s, the decade of the Dust Bowl following a seven year drought, than it is now for instance. We had very cold winters in the 1970’s, then mild winters in the 1980’s and nineties, now veering back to something like average. All cyclical, it has nothing whatsoever to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So global climate has been very stable for most of our lives. That may be changing now as we enter the grand solar minimum. In all likelihood there will be sharply colder temperatures for decades to come.
-
Wow.
Just wow.
One post about a problem and 5 out of 5 counter-posts denying some or all aspects of AGW, Peak Oil, and Overpopulation. All in one thread.
Congratulations. You’ve collectively won the argument. No mitigation will be happening for any of these problems.
Enjoy the ride on the Seneca curve.
-
Mouse Wizard
Forums are for discussions. It’s not an echo chamber – we want to be different here, in that we can civilly discuss things without tempers flaring.
I feel that the counters to your point were courteous and respectful. Let’s try to respond to those in the same way, okay? It’s absolutely fine to disagree – it isn’t as fine to get angry about someone else’s opinion. I know that can be hard when you feel passionate about something.
-
It wasn’t my point they were countering; Jersey Outlaw is the OP. My concern is that the conservative echo chamber is so rapidly developing on this forum.
I’ll switch to lurker mode and see how things develop here.
-
Eh, I am more in the CC is occurring than not.
So is Peak Oil.
And with the current lack of sunspots, another cooling is a very real possibility.
I believe overpopultion is a concern. Especially since it seems we, Westerners, are producing a lot of useless eaters with few or no real skills or assets other than as a consumer.
And I dont consider being a consumer of useless, cheap, shiny baubles from China a real skill.The upside, recent articles have shown decreases in male fertility, not just here in the US, but other Westernized nations as well.
IMHO, what really needs to be done, get off fossil fuels not not some warm and fuzzy, just move to renewable energy to maintain our lifestyle. We need a complete and total overhaul of our economy, and society to reduce our carbon footprint. We need to stop getting our food from 1200mi away. Air travel needs to stop. Population control, but our Fast Food lifestyle seems to be addressing that.
But, us humans wont give up anything meaningful. Make real sacrifice. Even those who were bemoaning when Trump pulled the US out of the Paris agreement, which was a joke and noted by many CC scientists before the ink was dry. Those people who are demanding CC action, as long as they dont have to give up their cars, their mocachina latees, the internet videos of cats or their climate control 3000sqft Mcmansions.
Maybe what the world needs is a Carrington event.
-
The peak oil scare of the early 00’s was promoted by geophysicists such as Colin Campbell and it’s basic premise was that the world would be depleted of cheap oil by about 2004, meaning that there would always be oil but it wouldn’t be economically feasible to extract it after a certain point; the energy invested to extract it would be greater than the energy yield of the oil itself. At the time this made perfect sense to me, but alas, it never came to be. Now it seems that the world is awash in cheap oil. Live and learn. The idea of abiotic oil has also gained some traction in the interim. Russia, one of the largest oil-producers, bases its oil production policies on that very concept. The conventional wisdom that used to be taught was that oil came from dinosaurs that died and were then covered by sediments which incrementally accrued and caused the dinosaurs to, under intense pressure, break down into their hydrocarbon constituents. Sinclair Oil used have a dinosaur as its logo and sold gasoline under brand names like Dino Supreme, and so on. I would think that a dinosaur that died suddenly of, say, a heart attack, would have its carcass eaten by scavengers or just decay, not wait patiently to be covered with sediments. And some oil fields are miles under the sea floor. So apparently dinosaurs lived down there. Who knew?
-
Actually fracking proves Peak Oil is real. When you start running out of the cheap, conventional oil, they turn to the more expensive unconventional oil.
In the Mid-East oil can be pulled out of the ground in and around the $20-30 mark conventionally.
Fracking it is closer to $46 mark. And Fracking wells deplete at an exponential rate.The recent low oil prices (back when it sat at $40 for years) prohibited oil exploration. There have been several articles indicating as a result of lack of exploration, annual increase in demand, there will be a oil production bottle neck. Some say as early as 2020. Others say 2022 to 2030.
Time will tell.
-
Oh, in Greenland, they took icecore samples in the 3km long. In them they found DNA of trees, spiders, and butterflies.
Who knew? -
Ouch. NOT a conservative. 🙂 Just a voluntaryist who tries to look at each situation separately from the right vs left paradigm.
-
AnonymousHas anyone ever stopped to think why Greenland is called GREENland?
Another piece of news I remember reading a while ago, a melting glaciers (I think it was in Norway) uncovered an ancient human settlement and archaeologists were scrambling to save the artifacts that exposed to light, water, and air were rapidly deteriorating. Obviously the news was focused on the melting glacier not on the fact that humans lived there many years ago which proves that the glacier was not there and probably nowhere near that settlement.
-
A kilometer is about 40,000 inches. If snow adds just two inches to the ice pack each year, then in 60,000 years the trees, spiders and butterflies will be 3km down. And I bet it adds more than 2 inches to the ice each year.
-
Dark Future
Has anyone ever stopped to think why Greenland is called GREENland?
This may not be true, but when I was in middle school, our social studies teacher told us that it was to “trick” the Vikings, so they would go there instead of Iceland, which is apparently greener than Greenland. 🙂
Something I now need to look up down the rabbit hole of the internet.
-
Sam,
Although as children we were taught that oil came from dinosaurs, I don’t think serious geologists ever meant for the story to be taken literally.
Plants and animals are made from pretty much the same stuff (mostly Carbon, Hydrogen and Oxygen), which breaks down and reforms under certain conditions into the hydrocarbons that comprise oil. There are about 550 gigatons of life on Earth, of which 450 gigatons are plant and just 2 gigatons are animal. It should be clear that only the tiniest of tiny fractions of oil could have come from dinosaurs.
In fact, the main contributors are believed to be algae and plankton. Sinclair Oil sold us on the dinosaur story more because it’s a lot more fun to think of their company’s product that way than is the truth. I mean, dinosaurs are COOL! Sinclair oil is COOL! Plankton and algae? Not so cool.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
Decomposed.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
Crow Bar’s comments about fracking and peak oil are true and I agree with his conclusion that Peak Oil is real. Fracking wells do deplete extraordinarily fast, and there is a high default rate on the loans that were taken out to build them. Consequently, we are awash in oil but it is a surplus that will not last.
Get ready. When oil prices rise, fertilizer prices will soon follow. And then food.
-
Mouse Wizard,
re: “My concern is that the conservative echo chamber is so rapidly developing on this forum. I’ll switch to lurker mode and see how things develop here.”
If those who disagree with the majority all “switch to lurker mode,” then of course the “conservative echo chamber” is going to rapidly take control. We’d all be better off if instead of going silent you spoke up and explained where and why we are wrong.
Nobody here, so far as I can tell, wants to shut you down.
I’m actually very surprised at the direction the forum is leaning. I am used to holding the minority view on this subject – usually badly outnumbered. To find so many “climate change skeptics” in a place that is ostensibly about prepping, gardening and sustaining our environment is unexpected and refreshing, to say the least.
-
@decomposed,
based off the Greenland Wiki, where I found that ice core factoid, they came up between 450,000 and 900,000 years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland#Geography_and_climateIn reference to dinosaurs, most people only think of the ones like the in movie Jurassic Park. There were not only land based but sea based ones as well.
-
Anonymous@decomposed, preppers are, or should be, skeptics by nature. When you just accept uncritically the mainstream ideas about anything you set yourself up for failure. Doubting something makes you see more clearly the other options that are out there.
Personally I think that the whole climate change thing has become, since Al Gore’s movie, a giant marketing tool. A huge amount of money moves from consumers’ and taxpayers’ to corporations under the “it’s better for the climate” label and, in the world we live in, money obscures the truth and spotlight the lies.
-
-
@DF, the way I see it, there is money but it is in maintaining the status quo: Staying dependent on fossil fuels.
There is no money to be made in real CC actions. Globalism would have to die. The world would be round again. And it would be local. -
Anonymous@Crow_Bar, Tesla got billion in taxpayer money and more will come when they finally tank. My electrical bill is full of rebates that are paid either by the utility company (from our bills) or by the government (from taxes). People who installed solar panels got a lot back as tax credit otherwise they
would never have done it. Power companies get money from the government to build those wind farms and solar obscenities you see around the country. Car companies had a good boost in sale of hybrids from tax rebates. I think there is plenty of evidence that someone is making money out of it. And ain’t me or you.That all that does nothing to address a real or fictitious climate change problem, is another matter altogether.
About keeping people dependent of fossil fuel, there is truth in that but the more I learn about how the petrodollar works, the more I lean toward thinking that it is about the dollar more than it is about the oil. The war for oil were thought until the 60s. Then all became about keeping the dollar at the top.
-
Greenland was called that by Eric the Red or Lief Erickson (I confuse the two) as a PR ploy to encourage the Vikings to settle there. It was however warmer there 1000 years ago than it is now. The Vikings established settlements and were able to farm, at least on the Southern tip. There are few farms in Greenland today
-
Well, it is refreshing to see a more balanced set of views in appear in this thread. And I appreciate the words of encouragement from Decomposed. So OK, lurker mode OFF.
… has anyone actually read the article linked by the OP? It looks like a Farcebook link but in reality it’s to a standalone site. Here’s the core link: Let’s Back Up Here…
I encourage people to read the link, then discuss the actual topic at hand instead of dragging their favorite strawman out of the closet and throwing it on the keyboard.
-
I’ve read the article but didn’t continue on to read the articles it references. For me, the article is unconvincing.
I could, however, be convinced fairly easily. All an author has to do is to show me that the scientific method has been employed in determining that AGW is unquestionably real. Someone ought to be able to do that, right? But they haven’t. Steps 3, 4 and 5 of the scientific method are:
3) Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4) Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5) Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.Have predictions been made based upon AGW theory? Absolutely. They were widely publicized. The ones that have had enough time to conclude were all failures.
o In 2005, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) said that by 2010, 50 million refugees would have to flee low lying coastal regions. But by 2010, not only were there no climate refugees, the populations of the named areas were drastically increasing. The Bahamas, for instance, had a population increase from 300,000 to 350,000 in that five year period. China’s six fastest growing cities were ALL in Areas the U.N. had targeted. Epic failure for the theory.
o The U.N. predicted in 2007 that the world’s glaciers would be gone by 2035. Rather than wait to see that it obviously wouldn’t happen, the U.N. recanted the prediction. Epic failure for the theory.
o In 2003, the Pentagon issued a paper predicting that within ten years, calamitous changes would take place: California flooded with inland seas, parts of the Netherlands “unlivable,” polar ice all but gone in the summers, and surging temperatures. Mass increases in hurricanes, tornadoes, and other natural disasters were supposed to be wreaking havoc across the globe, too. “Britain will be ‘Siberian’ in less than 20 years.” All of that would supposedly spark resource wars and all sorts of other horrors. But none of it actually happened. Epic failure for the theory.
o In 2007, 2008 and 2009, Al Gore stated that the Arctic would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.” In fact, in September 2013 when Arctic’s ice levels were at their lowest for the year, the coverage exceeded 2007 levels by an area the size of California. Epic failure for the theory.
o It’s been a worse story in the Antarctic – where sea ice grew dramatically instead of melting. Epic failure for the theory.
o Meteorologist Anthony Watts published an article in 2013 in which he stated ” “It seems like every major CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming] prediction has failed in 2013.” Epic failure for the theory.
I could go on and on. Polar bears aren’t extinct. Nor are they wandering around in New York. Wildfires and droughts aren’t dramatically more common. NYC is not underwater. Nor are any other coastal cities *except* for those that are actually sinking… and the New York Times keeps publishing nonsensical articles claiming that this is due to rising oceans. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. Failure. The scientific method does not support AGW theory.
Far from supporting it, predictions show that AGW theory is incorrect. That’s not to say that the climate isn’t getting warmer. Maybe it is. But if so, scientists need to go back to the drawing board to come up with a theory from which verifiable predictions can be made. If they don’t do that, what they’re touting isn’t science; it’s religion.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by Decomposed.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
-
About 20 years ago the big climate crisis was that it was getting colder. Ten years or so ago the alarmists changed it to “global warming”. As people began looking at the supposed data it was found in many cases to have been purposefully fudged, as in the case to the climate conclusion reached and published by that East Anglia institution in the UK. And, one must admit that all those celebrity proponents of global warming really didn’t help their case jetting around in their private aircraft dumping more carbon as they trekked of to various summits on global warming and the mansions they lived in used more energy than most small cities. No one has to be a conservative (whatever that really is) for doubting. Now its simply the catch all “climate change”. Of course its changing. But not because of anything humans are doing. Its always changing. Most often very slow, but it can change very rapidly temporarily after an eruption of a super volcano like Toba.
-
Anonymous@Mouse_Wizard, I have read the article and typed a long reply to it that went lost. The point of the article is that the rise in temperature is even higher than what is reported and that an impeding catastrophe is coming.
If you look at the data the article itself presents, there is no evidence of what the article claims. The graphic of the temperatures at https://arctic-news.blogspot.com/2018/04/how-much-warmer-is-it-now.html?m=%201 is flat for all the recent data but spike after the current year. A trend doesn’t change like that because in nature there is no turn on a dime change of direction.
To me, this is just one more blogger in search of attention than a serious article.
-
Which graph? There are several. I believe you’re looking at the one that crosses 10C? It’s “flat for all the recent data” because the data set for that graph only goes back 15 years. That’s a pretty restrictive data set to declare the temperature is “flat.”
I believe the author, like many others, is making the assumption that people reading the article have a mental picture of the observed worldwide temperature curve (including ice core data) going back to pre-industrial time, which looks remarkably like a hockey stick.
The hockey stick is going to start looking more like a scythe Real Soon Now.
-
Anonymous@Mouse_Wizard, sorry thought the link went to the graph I was talking about. But yes, that’s the graph I am talking about.
You might assume what you want, but if an author wants to prove a point, he does not rely on assumptions and sensational graphs. If 15 years of historical data is too short, projecting that data out for another 15 years is even more BS that no serious statistician would do.
I suggest you read some more scientific data rather than just the National Enquirer of climate change. Beyond that, you’re free to believe whatever you want just do not get upset when people have different opinions.
-
Baby. Bathwater. And that’s the first time I’ve encountered that particular site.
Just sayin’
-
I like to think I’m opened minded and not bound by the conventional thinking of today. I also received a degree in earth sciences before the current indoctrination began. It has long be recognized that their is geological climate change.
Historically populations migrated as necessary to deal with changes in weather and sea level. In fact hardly anyone lived in flood plains or next to the sea in low lands. We have become stupid in that regard.
When the time comes making it necessary to move, it is obvious that some people will wait until it is to late.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
Now migrations are occurring due to economic and religious reasons.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
That AGW predictions have failed utterly is self-evident at this point. Wildfire burn acreage is down dramatically from the early part of the 20th century, frequency and intensity of hurricanes and tornadoes have decreased rather than increased, the rate of sea level rise is unchanged. In fact sea level, as measured by tide gauges, has actually fallen for several years in succession at NYC while at the same time it is claimed that sea level on the West coast is rising. Since water seeks a level surface, how is that possible? As for the global warming it is surpassingly difficult to ascertain average global temperatures since there are large areas of the Earth in which little data is available, Africa for instance. And there are only eight thermometers in Antarctica. This creates situations which encourage cherrypicking and “infilling” of data to create an impression of warming. For example a couple of years ago the Northernmost tip of Antarctica briefly reached 60F. The creatures at The Weather Channel flipped out, OMG, it’s 60 degrees at the South Pole, climate change, we’re all gonna die! Unreported was that on the same day in the interior of Antarctica it was minus 109F. The only question at this point is why is AGW being pushed so hard, especially now as “the people” begin to question and disregard the “settled science” (a contradiction in terms) and believe the evidence of their senses.
-
Great discussion, folks. I’m learning a lot of new stuff!
-
Wow. This whole page is full of “facts.”
Not a single reference link to be found.
And three very common clinchers:
1) “All an author has to do is to show me that the scientific method has been employed in determining that AGW is unquestionably real.” Folks will always “question” the science. Especially when it is in their personal interest to do so.
2) “If you look at the data the article itself presents, there is no evidence of what the article claims. The graphic of the temperatures… To me, this is just one more blogger in search of attention than a serious article.” In a larger article, find a single point to disagree with, and use that to discount the entire thing.
3) “I suggest you read some more scientific data rather than just the National Enquirer of climate change.” Discount the entire site, and while you’re at it discount anyone who isn’t accepted by you as an Unquestionable Expert on the topic.
Usually at this point in the debate there will appear a bunch of links posted that are already debunked on the various sites that specialize in debunking anti-AGW articles. If you see any links, just find the article title and do a search for ‘debunk {article title}’. It’s that easy.
From this point on it’s a rabbit hole to a twisty, twiny maze of point-counterpoint. Folks on both sides have all their ammo racked and ready, and after a bunch of noise and smoke, the end result will be the same.
No action will be taken on Peak Oil or Climate Change. Just not gonna happen, because most all of us are trapped in the current infinite growth paradigm. Even if a sufficient number of us to make a difference were motivated enough to make drastic life changes, we couldn’t get out of the current system without sacrificing relationships with friends, family, spouses and/or children. Then there’s the matter of getting out from under our current debt burden (personally or nationally). The banks have a stranglehold and they’re Too Big To Fail.
Politicians and policy makers are fully aware of this. Everyone is kicking the can down the road and hoping it doesn’t roll off a cliff on the next kick. There’s an excellent NY Times article on how this came to pass. Turns out it wasn’t a Big Oil conspiracy.
I’ve been fighting this fight for over two decades now, and it’s not that the data isn’t there; it’s that there’s a never-ending stream of people flowing off the right wing propaganda sites spouting the same fact-free arguments over and over. Nearly all of them will never be convinced otherwise; the majority of them don’t understand basic statistics, much less things like what happens when/why a bell curve shifts, so they can’t understand a true scientific article or how it fits into the larger puzzle.
And I believe the anti-AGW folks feel much the same way. They’re facing what they perceive as a well-funded, grant-fed, long term conspiracy to pump research dollars into an alarming topic that has very questionable origins, like the global cooling meme from the 1970’s that they cite, or the arctic ice cap expanded one year so we’re all being lied to. And this flood of doomer news never stops, because it’s a well funded, broad-based conspiracy.
If AGW wins the argument, then we ALL have to stop flying, stop driving for the most part, move to areas served by rail or waterway and far enough from the shoreline, really cut down on meat, cut way back on the variety of food and products available to us, let most of the third world die of starvation, shrink our own population through attrition and lack of advanced medical care, go to sleep when the sun goes down, shift the bulk of careers from mental labor to physical labor, be cold in the winter and hot in the summer, etc. etc. That is truly a future to avoid. It’s worth fighting the good fight. I understand.
If Anti-AGW wins the argument, then it’s business as usual and we don’t have to trash our economic system on purpose. And no one has to think about the future.
But the future will come. Not as fast as predicted (thankfully), but the signal is now well out of the noise. We ignore it at our children’s peril.
It’s too bad we can’t find some middle ground.
-
Mr. Wizard, there is always middle ground but we have to willing to seek it. None of us has the market cornered on objective truth but we all have a piece of it. For what it’s worth I am often characterized as a “climate denier” (I don’t know what it is I am supposed to be denying so that is meaningless to me) because I no longer accept that the Earth is experiencing catastrophic human-induced warming. I’ve examined the evidence and it doesn’t convince. Too many failed predictions, too much hyperbole and hysteria. And I don’t really have a dog in this fight, I live very simply, drive very little, don’t waste anything, and have reverence for life. Justice and Kindness to all living things is my operative philosophy. Once I was convinced of the AGW concept, I was an ardent tree-hugging environmentalist (still am actually) and after a series of non-winters in the 90’s I thought our time was almost up. I blamed Newt Gingrich and the Republicans. And of course Big Oil. Then I changed my mind, at least about AGW. So if the AGW folks have their way, with all the lifestyle changes that you describe, it won’t effect my life significantly. I agree, by the way, with you re: debt, both personal and sovereign. An unexploded bomb, and I don’t see any way out of it other than flipping the monopoly board and starting over. Also agree with you about unrestricted growth, which in an economic context is intended to mean growth of profits. One of my favorite quotes is from the environmentalist and author Edward Abbey who said, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.” I think he nailed it. Anyway, in the interest of finding common ground, lets just say that our interpretation of the evidence differs. And continue to talk about it. Ontological intersubjectivity as it were.
-
@Mouse,
Great post and I agree with you.
I would post links to articles, but they are spread out over various sites, over various years.IMHO, your observation of if AGW wins is close, but not quite.
I have mentioned before, most of the AGW crowd think they can just shift the carbon footprint to re-newables and all is well! They can keep their electric cars, their lattes, the cat videos, climate control McMansions with TV in every room to include the dogs!
Ask them to really give up to reduce their carbon footprint to combat AGW? What is that? Crickets I hear?
Most of those in the AGW crowd are not willing to do what it takes. They are just too selfish. -
@sam,
I get what you mean about failed predictions.
But as humans and making predictions about anything, especially the future, we generally in the fail category.
Yes, there are one-offs. But I would not bet the house on them.Realistically, I think there are too many variables, to many changes, and an algorithm/model or the computing power to make any AGW predictions with any real degree of accuracy does not exist at this time.
And if there was, we would call it God.
-
In 2012, I was having a discussion about AGW with an ardent supporter. Since he regarded the issue as open and shut, I came up with the following list of issues and questions I didn’t think had been adequately addressed. When I posted it, I was banned from the forum. LOL! I hope I’ll have better success with it here.
1) Is the Earth’s temperature actually rising?
2) How do we know?
3) ASSUMING THE ANSWER IS YES, by how much?
4) Will it continue to do this, or will forces, natural or unnatural, halt or reverse the process? (As has happened countless times in the past.)
5) What will a warmer Earth be like?
6) How do we know that?
7) Is that bad or good?
8 ) How do we know that?
9) What should be done about the rising temperature?
10) How much will doing this cost?
11) Who should foot the bill?
12) Does the world have that much money?
13) What will spending this much money do to our quality of life? In other words, what will our lives be like?
14) Does it make any sense to make the recommended changes when far larger polluters such as China aren’t doing so?
15) Could doing this make the problem WORSE instead of better? (Letting a starving man stuff himself will KILL him.)
16) Could Global Warming just be a political tool, not a real threat?
17) Why are politicians on ONE SIDE using Global Warming to enhance their careers and fortunes?
18 ) Why are scientists who disagree about Global Warming being \”taken out\”?
19) Why are civilians who disagree about Global Warming taunted?
20) Why isn’t it a HUGE story that, per #18, scientists are pressured to behave in a very unscientific manner… namely, to treat Global Warming as
fact? (Oregon’s chief meteorologist was fired by the governor because he “denied” Global Warming. NASA’s chief denied it, created a firestorm, then
abruptly backed off of the claim. I could go on.) There’s less pressure these days on deniers of RELATIVITY.
21) Since Global Warming is supposed to cause climate change, why are stories about heat, dryness and fire getting all the publicity, instead of stories of
cold, rain and blizzard?
22) Why is the New York Times printing articles about Virginia oceanside towns that are going underwater… and attributing it to Global Warming…
when we all know that the ocean rise has been insignificant. Besides, if the oceans had risen,
all such towns would be going underwater equally. So, why is the NYT printing such things?
23) Why are Global Warming stories that have since been proven false not commonly known? (The polar bear population is actually INCREASING, etc.)
24) Why is Global Warming so focused on the North Pole, where ice is decreasing, and not on the South Pole, where most of the world’s ice is located?
25) Why is ice at the South Pole INCREASING?
26) Could the Sun actually be the cause of Global Warming?
27) How much of Global Warming could be due to the increased sunspot activity (which affects cloud formation)
28 ) Why is Global Warming Occurring?
29) Is Man responsible?
30) How do we know that?
31) Why are the ice caps on Mars decreasing?
32) Why is a WEAK greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, getting the blame? Water vapor is a far better greenhouse gas. Methane is vastly better still.
33) Based on studies of Antarctic ice, CO2 levels are today 94 ppm higher than they were 650,000 years ago. That means there is less than one
additional CO2 molecule for every TEN THOUSAND other molecules of air. The information comes from here – a global warming
site: http://www.thinkglobalgreen.org/CARBONDIOXIDE.html . I’ve studied chemistry. There are NO significant systemic changes that occur with chemical
introductions at those levels. Any comments?
34) Why isn’t Al Gore being crucified by scientists (and, actually, by everyone else) for his claim three years ago that oceans would rise TWO HUNDRED AND
TWENTY FEET (67 metres) between 2014 and 2019?
35) Has he lost his credibility because of this, in your view?
36) Are there any concerns by the left that Al Gore’s exaggerations and fear-mongering have made him one of the Uber-wealthy that they claim to despise?
37) MIGHT, just MIGHT, that have been Al’s real motive?
38 ) Where is the liberal outrage of the ENORMOUS carbon footprints generated by some of the Global Warming proponents best known politicians? (Al
Gore, Nancy Pelosi, John Edwards, to name just a few.)
39) Ray Kurzweil, one of the world’s visionary geniuses (he’s the premier authority on voice recognition, among many, many other things), sides with you that
the Earth IS warming. However, he is certain that it is an utter waste of time and money to do anything about it today since, within 30 years, nanotechnology will
have advanced to the point that carbon-eating nanobots will be readily available to deal with \”the problem\” for practically no cost. And today, we don’t have
the technology to deal with the problem at all. WHY ISN’T THIS BEING DISCUSSED?
40) Why has the left zeroed in on Global Warming, and not the Earth’s other huge environmental problems –some of which we all acknowledge to
be real. What makes Global Warming more important than:
• The expanded ozone hole
• Depletion of the rain forests
• Pollution of the oceans
• Population growth
• Insufficient food production
• The water crisis
• The energy crisis
• Proliferation of nuclear weapons.
41) If Global Warming is such an open and shut phenomenon, why are there so many world class (and Nobel prize winning) physicists, chemists and
meteorologists who have stuck their necks out to denounce the weakness of the evidence, the contradictory evidence, and the theory’s many flaws? -
There are any number of fundamental issues of science, health, and politics in which a master narrative, what they call “consensus”, is dominant. New knowledge never emerges from consensus, it’s antithetical to scientific inquiry. Controversy is the driver of new knowledge and so it is sometimes necessary, in the interest of pursuing objective truth, to take a controversial and contrary position that challenges the orthodox view. You do so at your peril and will often find yourself in a position of being a minority of one in a unanimous majority, a very difficult stance to maintain. And there is a predictable pattern to the way in which the orthodoxy reacts to being challenged; ridicule, marginalization, vague threats of imprisonment for “deniers” (from, in the case of AGW, such luminaries as Bill Nye the Science Guy). From my reading of history this has always been the case. But by all means continue to seek truth, and speak it, but don’t forget to duck. And keep in mind that true believers of any stripe are rarely amenable to rational disputation
-
It’s not much of a stretch to believe that the sun drives climate on earth. It is however hard to believe that buying carbon credits will somehow effect climate. The lack of common sense applied to this debate was humorous to start with, but has grown tiresome. IMHO, if people can’t look at something as fundamental as the weather/climate objectively and scientifically, then prepping for them is a waste of time. 🙂
-
Humans produce 6-40 billion tons of carbon emissions per year (depending on source of study). That is 6-40 GT. Per Fundamentals of Geobiology by
Andrew H. Knoll, Don E. Canfield, and Kurt O. Konhauser; the atmosphere possesses 835 GT of carbon. The living biomass on the land has 1,000 GT. The dead biomass on the land has 1,200 GT. The ocean possesses 38,400 GT. This is not counting carbon bound up in mineral form. That weighs in at 75,000,000 GT. To put it bluntly, the planet laughs at human emissions. Trees eat that for breakfast.Now how active or inactive the sun is, how that effects our magnetism, our physical distance from the sun (it is being posited that our orbit alters shape) …I put far more weight into all of that than man-made global warming.
Also, I’d like to say it is amazing to actually be able to post this and feel like I won’t be run out of town, haha.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
GardenWeasel.
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
This reply was modified 1 year, 7 months ago by
-
Agreed, the planet laughs at human carbon emissions.CO2 as a GHG is utterly negligible. So why all the shrieking hysteria about carbon footprints and such? The architects of public policy know very well that climate change is cyclical and that we are on the verge of a probably decades-long cold period. It is their intention to make abundant “fossil fuel” energy inaccessible during that period resulting in crop failures, famines, infectious epidemics, etc., thereby reducing the global population very significantly. They have been talking and writing about it very openly in their conferences and think tanks and monographs at least since the 1970’s. As a consequence there will be left a smaller and more manageable populace that is more amenable to global governance.
-
I do think it is very interesting that so many countries in optimal grow zones for a grand solar minimum have had UN peacekeeping missions. I find it even more interesting that many of said countries are now part of the UN Scaling Up Nutrition or SUN Countries.
The official UN pdf says this,
“Almost $24bn of external resources has been committed to nutrition, networks of supporters are expanding, and consensus is being reached on how best to improve the effectiveness of support to SUN countries.
Members of the Movement are applying their expertise and knowledge in ways that are changing the discourse on nutrition, and this is beginning to make lasting transformations in ways of working together for effective action.
The SUN Movement has created space to mobilise global support to scale up nutrition at country- level, enabling governments and their supporters to better achieve impact. In this way, SUN countries that are scaling up nutrition and all those supporting them are contributing to the challenge to eliminate hunger in our lifetime.” Link
Now if global warming was indeed occuring those same regions would become desertified and be rendered completely useless for producing food. It would be the height of folly to invest 24 billion dollars in a project doomed to failure. But gee if the opposite happens and the world cools… and the UN just so happens to have a stranglehold on the last breadbasket… well that’s just one lovely coincidence.
-
I think that is a very astute observation GW. The general public is mostly like mushrooms – Fed crap and kept in the dark. Most apparently like it that way. Why worry because everything is lovely. I have my sofa and a big screen TV!
If we really knew what the truth was on many issues I likely would be buying a lot more tequila! -
A slight detour from the global warming discussion:
Just this morning my family was discussing how in 1816, almost every family was forced to leave our town and moved to the Midwest (which was less affected). It was “the year without a summer”.
1816 in rural New England meant a lot of subsistence farming. Mount Tambora in Indonesia erupted, putting so much dust into the sky that weather changed markedly, and crops failed. One source says 90,000 deaths globally attributed to the event.
Now that occurred at a time when people knew how to feed themselves, and the global population was much less.
I am guessing that at our current population density and inability to feed our families without grocery stores, it would be a big deal, but industrial farming from elsewhere in the globe would probably keep us afloat.
Unless we were also in the midst of some massive financial collapse or SHTF event, at which point we’d all be starving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.