Global climate change

Posted by $ TomB666 3 years, 6 months ago to Science
97 comments | Share | Flag

I have two questions about climate change: 1. What is the primary cause of climate change? 2. Who benefits by publishing faulty data?
SOURCE URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by ProfChuck 3 years, 6 months ago
    Solar energy is the dominant force behind climate change but the presence of vegetation and animal life and the way they alter the chemical composition of the oceans and the atmosphere plays a significant roll. For example there would be no free oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere if there was no plant life.

    To answer the second part of the question it is important to understand the difference between climate science and climate politics. From the perspective of the scientist (real scientists) climate change is a phenomenon to be studied and understood. From the perspective of the politician it is a tool that can be used to increase political power. The scientist wants to understand it while the politician doesn't care if it is real or not. It is only important that it be accepted as a threat. As H. L. Menkin observed, "the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
    1) The sun and Techtonics play the major role in the changing climate. Periods of high sunspot activity tend to make the Earth warmer, while low sunspot activity tends to make the Earth cooler. It all depends on the amount of radiation that the sun puts out. Also, tectonic activity is the second most important factor, which may also be influenced by the sun, if recent studies hold true. The more that the continents shift and move and more volcanic activity (currently occurring) tend to warm up the earth, while periods of greater quite tend to cool the earth. Part of the reasoning is that the Water Vapor and other greenhouse gasses that get released during volcanism, and shifts in the position of the crust tend to heat the atmosphere. It has been hypothesized that the natural condition of the Earth is without icecaps, and at any point in history when there are icecaps it is an Ice Age.

    Now humans may have a small effect on climate, but more likely in localized settings, not worldwide. Heat zones, loss of vegetation, particulate concentrations, and massive structures within cities could create a change in weather patterns both within and outside the city (more towards the direction of the prevailing winds). Hence more probability for severe storms. But once again, localized.

    2) Those who benefit are: "Poor Countries"/ Dictators who through world regulations receive money from "Rich Countries" for whom are responsible for the "Changing Climate", so they can "Help" their people achieve what the "Rich Countries" have. Politicians who get kickbacks from organizations and people pushing the "Climate Change" initiative. Companies and Organizations that study and push the "Climate Change" initiative by deceiving or fear mongering the public into donations. Scientists and Academic Institutions who "Study" and report on "Climate Change", because they will get grant money or donations in order to keep studying and reporting on the "issue".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
      I can see that tectonics may play a related role; but perhaps it is because both climate and tectonic shits are effects of the same cause. Whatever that is.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
        As I mentioned above, it may all be related to solar activity.

        In fact there was an article I saw recently where the end of the last great ice age may have been helped along by an underwater CO2 release.

        Also, CO2 seems to increase after global temperature rises, not causing the increase. Which then the question: What chemical is actually causing the rise in temperature? That very well may be Water Vapor, which holds more energy than does CO2. And, if we see that solar activity increases, melts the icecaps, creates more water to turn into water vapor, which in turn creates more warming. Much easier to explain and see the correlation too, than CO2.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
          Underwater CO2 release seems more valid than CO2 release from combustion on earth. But I believe the tilt of the axis of rotation of the earth to the plane of its revolution also has something to with it, especially its cyclic aspect.
          But of course, my next question is: what events taking place either within the sun, or on its surface, is responsible for what appears to be random "sun storm" activity.?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
            That is a good question, that I don't think the Scientific community has yet to define or determine.

            Also, please find a video on Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d09cJ...

            Or the PowerPoint in the video: https://taep.memberclicks.net/assets/...
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
              I'm at the point where Riese is correlating sun spot activity with specific humidity and sea surface temperature, and I wanted to ask this before I forgot:
              Why does the sun spot activity appear cyclic, yet the other two do not? At least, as yet?
              (One seems to be a gradual decrease; the other a gradual increase.) Could there be a time lag interpretation?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                It has to do with all the varying cycles in both earth orbit, earth tilt, solar, etc. and how they overlap through time. At some points, all will be at a high and thus have higher temps, while you will likely get variations of these that can either get canceled out or heightened. So if you get 4 patterns: one occurs every 1 million years, one occurs ever 33,000 thousand years, one every 5,200 years, and one occurs every 670 years... You will see something that doesn't look like any sort of cycle, but instead a random pattern. However, when you start to take each one individually, all the cycles are still occurring they may either be heightened or dampened by the other cycles.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                  I wanted to make sure you are aware that I was not questioning the data; the data makes the modeling look obscene.

                  I was questioning why the data shows those correlations: what is the scientific mechanism behind the observances?
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                    Unfortunately, that is not my area of expertise. However, my best guess would by the overall multiple cyclicities and where we are in them is one possibility. But the reason as to why the data shows the correlation, I am unsure and would have to do some serious research.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                      I'm thinking you may be inferring a sort of "superposition" of cyclic frequencies.

                      Serious research is good. I'd like to know for myself, too. You do the research; I'll do the analysis, and ask the questions. Will that work?

                      Just kidding.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                        If it wasn't for the fact that I'm already doing serious research on another subject for my Master's Degree, I would consider it.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                          I'm sure somebody will pick up on it. Graduate students, etc. Maybe somebody interested in mathematical physics.

                          What other subject? I've always regretted not having had the time to learn more about geology. I like rocks.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                            I'm doing my research on Petroleum Geology for one of the producing formations in the Permian Basin of West Texas.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                              Make sure those sand-dune lizards get "re-located" then! (Another joke.)

                              You can't destroy their habitat, even though little old ladies might freeze to death in the winter.
                              Even knowing those lizards can survive, and even, if needed, self-relocate!
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                                Those lizards are more resourceful than you may think. And the changing environment due to mesquite and cow pasturing are larger reasons for their demise than the Oil Field. But, because the oil has the money, they get blamed.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                                • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                                  But for the Leftist/Liberals, it is about more than money; they want to destroy capitalism, hasten its demise, so as to bring on the Marxist idea of a world wide communal social structure. This type of structure has never advanced in the history of mankind, and it has been shown to fail in modern history. Still, they continue to insist it is mankind's future.
                                  It will result in stagnation.
                                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                                  • maxgeoac replied 3 years, 6 months ago
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                  That seems to make sense. I wondered if maybe the presence of the earth's magnetosphere could possibly "even-out" sun spot activity, so that changes in the two would appear less cyclic. At least for those two factors; and maybe for other factors, such as atmospheric CO2.

                  Another interesting anomaly, and maybe I can't remember my chemistry classes on this, but at higher temperatures, wouldn't you expect more water vapor in the atmosphere, not less?

                  That particular correlation in the graph seems to show an inverse relation.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                    The Earth's Magnetosphere is also a likely cause of why it doesn't look cyclical.

                    As for the water vapor, yes you typically would see more with higher temperatures. However, water vapor will also turn into water droplets forming clouds. Thus, more clouds more cooling since the sun's radiation cannot reach the earth's surface to heat it up. So it would have a semi-inverse relationship to temperatures. This is especially true since water tends to hold its heat for longer periods of time as compared to rock.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                      Are you a geologist, Max?

                      Have you ever read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? He not only questioned anthropogenic global warming, but demonstrated that when humans attempt to "fix" what to them seems like a problem, they bring on a worse problem. That is, ecoterrorism will have a worsening effect on ecosystems.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                        I am a geologist. And "Global Warming" or "Global Climate Change" is something that I have been trying to educate, or fight people on, for years. Many label me as a "Climate Change" denier because I don't believe humans are the root cause.

                        I have not read anything by Michael Crichton, but I will definitely add it to my reading list. I think that Michael Crichton is in part correct on that assumption. The more we try to fix things, the worse they seem to get. The Earth knows how to take care of herself, we need to learn how to get out of the way and let her do it.

                        One great example of this are the Levies along the Mississippi river built by the US Army Core of Engineers. It may help those that live along the river not get flooded as often; however, because of them the land needs to be fertilized constantly, which in turn causes water contamination, and thus now there is a huge anoxic zone where fish cannot thrive off the coast of New Orleans. Or the fact that the levies have removed water from where it should be flowing, and that the coastline of Louisiana is shrinking. Etc., etc., etc.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                        • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                          Sometimes men (and women) just jump right to a solution before evaluating all the effects. Thus you get "unintended consequences".
                          For instance, I'm sure wind farms will interfere with normal wind patterns, and I'm not sure what that will do weather.

                          Or solar panel thermal farms. Those certainly are going to have some kind of effect on local climates. And thus wind patterns, as well.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                            Very true. The worst part about Solar Farms is that you need to put them where the sun is always shining; preferably with very little cloud cover (i.e.: Dessert). However, they take massive amounts of water in order to run. Which means they have to deplete the aquifer. Or how about the fact that they can literally cook a bird flying over head. Yet they are preferable to "Environmentalists" because they don't put CO2 into the atmosphere.
                            "Environmentalists" want wind farms because of the CO2 aspect; however, they also complain that too many birds get killed each year by them.

                            Humans have the ability to better the world, but with a narrow viewpoint they will only mess things up worse. If they were to learn the greater cause and effects and started looking at the broad scope (not the narrow), we would all be much better off.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                            • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                              In my "opinion", men evolved to control their environment, unlike lower animals whose environment exercises control over them. I really think that is why it was only the species "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" that entered the Neolithic Age; the other human species died off, or whatever, and were not able to exercise the same amount of control over changing climatic conditions.
                              Still we need to use that same "judgment" as we now have very powerful technologies that can control a greater extent of ecological systems.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                              • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                                Make that rapidly changing climatic conditions. Only a human---the only species with foresight---could more quickly change his environment to coincide with the rapid changes in climate, and thus have a greater chance of surviving.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                Depending on what he is talking about, with CO2 readings and Warming trends, there is a time lag. CO2 levels actually increase after warming has already begun. Thus the correlation will be that CO2 rise and Warming are being caused by something else.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
              I'm about 15 minutes into the Riese video and it is absolutely good science---mind blowing.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                Just goes to show you the difference between actual Science being done by real scientists, and Pseudo-Science being conducted by "Climate Change" or "Government" scientists. One is forming the opinion on facts, and the other is forming the facts to fit the opinion.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                  Not just fit the "opinion"; more like fit "what they want to believe" or maybe what they want others to believe.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fredtyg 3 years, 6 months ago
    Climate is primarily determined by to tilt of the Earth's axis, Earth's rotation and whatever the sun's doing.

    Who benefits? Authoritarians looking for excuses for control and scientists looking for excuses more more funding for their studies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 6 months ago
      Welcome to The Gulch.
      Hopefully, such PC funding will cease with Trump in office.
      If so, such PC funding will resume should the scales of power tilt back to favor the globalist Jackass Party.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 3 years, 6 months ago
    In partial answers to my own questions, I wonder if people are truly significantly influencing the global climate – significant being the important point. From my limited scientific knowledge it seems to me that the Sun is the primary influencer of changing climate and that the efforts of people to make a difference are a bit like “tilting at a windmill.”

    The second point makes me wonder just how honest the climate scientists are. My reference point here is Dupont’s Freon. Just at the time that the patent on Freon was to expire it was ‘discovered’ that Freon was harming the environment by causing global warming and needed to be taken off the market. Lucky for us, Dupont just happened to have a new patent on R-134 refrigerant which would replace Freon and do less harm to the environment. Or maybe it was just a coincidence???
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by NealS 3 years, 6 months ago
      Yes DuPont's timing was extraordinary. It seems similar to the cover-up's created around Monsanto's and Dow Chemical's Agent Orange (Blue, Green, and all the others that most people have never heard of).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 3 years, 6 months ago
    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary". H. L. Mencken

    Now, "science," using the same concept, has jumped in as rent seekers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not saying it isn't. However, just try to argue with one, and tell/show them the facts. They have no real come back except to get super upset or call you racist. What they don't understand is that they just lost at this point, and there is no more reason to argue. Yet, they take it as their win.

    Also, the Socialist/Communist mentality is not truly Socialist/Communist. Because not everyone is the same, instead you get more of a Feudal system, where the ultra rich control everything, and the rest are dirt poor.

    Also, these same systems are the exact ones that have caused the greatest genocides/mass murders in history.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
      Correct. But Leftist/Liberals, having been educated and informed by feminists, act, and think, like women. It is the major reason you can't get anywhere with them. I'm not sure they can properly assess past and present, and its explications/extrapolations for the future.

      Socialism and Communism and all of their knock-offs are inherently unfair, and the idiotology destroys individuality and inhibits creativity.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
        That comment was a little sexist.

        However, all you have to do is read "1984" to see what they want. However, we'll get there through first "Atlas Shrugged", and then will be forced into "Ferinheight 451" and "A Brave New World" before we get to "1984". Unfortunately "Atlas Shrugged" is already a little too real.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
          Sexism is only a word used by women to intimidate men and conservative women. It hides all the richness, strength and caring in real women.

          I have said on another forum: "We conservatives will drive a stake through the dead, dark heart of the Leftist/Liberal/Feminists who have devoured the strength of the men of America, and destroyed the strength of American women.

          You DO know that I am a woman, don't you? And I like being a woman---a real woman, not the namby pamby women of Liberalism.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by $ 3 years, 6 months ago
            I for one did not know you are a woman. But then in a forum like this where many people use pseudonyms, so what. Your comments (and mine and everyone's) should be judged on the content of the comment, not on the sex of the author.
            And if I were PC I'd have written 'gender' in lieu of 'sex' so you can tell that I have no use for PC ;-)
            Meanwhile, thanks for your insights.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
            I didn't know you were a woman. I would be talking to you the same way in any case. However, I understand where you are coming from. Though I also believe that Modern Feminists are not advocates of Feminism, nor are Socialists advocates of Socialism. They want to put people down and put them into chains. However, advocating that "All Men (as in humans) Are Created Equal", not "All Should Be Equal in Pay, Work, etc." is a higher calling.

            I also don't consider myself a "Conservative" but instead an "Independent", though I have conservative ideologies. This has as much to do with my Science background as anything else. Show me the Facts, and I will change my opinion given those, and only those. I can never prove anything "Right or Correct," I can prove however that something is "Incorrect".
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
              Facts, max? There are no more "facts" in today's reality. A fact nowadays is what someone wants it to be, or thinks it is. Reason is what one uses to determine truth. Leftist/Liberals, as I have pointed out, do not reason.

              As far as proving something is incorrect, I assume you are talking in terms of logic. But even if you could prove something is incorrect, that doesn't mean the Leftist/Liberals can.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                Those points right there are what I strive to change. Fact Based Logic, basing one's opinion on what is logical not what is felt or perceived.

                Facts are all around us, however (much as in this overall topic) people are no longer using Facts, but instead manipulating data to fit opinion/policy. I cannot say that "It is bright outside" while standing in an unlit cave and make it be true because the fact is I am neither outside nor is there any light. However, I can manipulate people into believing it by changing their thinking to fit my purposes. This is what is going on today. The manipulation of people to fit an ideology, and the fact that those manipulated either refuse to fact check or think logically is why we are in such dire times. The only way to make them "see the light" (if you will excuse the pun) is to keep presenting the facts and teaching them how to think logically. Most will refuse, because it's human nature not to change a "Belief", yet an idea can change when the facts disagree with it.

                All these ideologies (Feminism, Socialism, Communism, etc.) have moved away from the realm of reality and are now Religions with their own Belief system. This is why those whom follow refuse and detest everything that does not fit. It is against their belief. Logic and reason can, and has, won throughout human history, it just takes a much longer time to do so.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                • -1
                  Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                  You are correct, except insofar as you continue to think you can still find "facts" in today's world.

                  Logic, reason and scientific method. And principles such as this:

                  Thinking that human nature can be anything you want it to be (the blank slate theory) is not only wrong, it is dangerous, and thus evil. "Proof" of such a principle is not yet available, though certain neurologists and psychologists might agree with it.

                  Stephen Pinker said in one of his books according to "...our best estimate of human nature..."

                  I simply told him his best estimate of human nature is badly flawed.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                    For humans, much as every other animal, there is no blank slate. Even the whole "Nature vs. Nurture" theory has, so insofar as I know, is incorrect. Humans are inherently flawed by their own nature.

                    Yet, facts are still all around us and are found every day, in everything we do. Now, if you were to choose not to heed the facts presented, you will ultimately fail in some way, shape, or form.

                    Now, here is a philosophical question for you, and I am not a philosopher: "Are facts still facts if the data they are based on are incorrect, manipulated, or flawed?" Much of science completed throughout history has in some way been flawed but fit with the technology and understanding available, yet when technology or better data became available theories were changed. Yet, the theory "The sky is orange because the sun is yellow" is still false because we can test, and retest the facts which the technology that we have and know this to be false.

                    Facts are inherent in our world and universe. We as humans have the "privilege" to ignore them and come up with our own beliefs. Yet, the facts are still just that. It is making people realize that they are incorrect and having them accept it, that is what is not as easily changed.

                    "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                      Well, I think that's my point, but now I'm not so sure anymore.---Ha!

                      Anyway, this is my stock answer: Science is proof without certainty; faith is certainty without proof.

                      As to man's flawed nature---man is imperfect only because, though he has a sense of the about-to-be, he in no way has 100% absolute certainty of what it will entail. Thus, risk-taking, use of abstraction to acquire new knowledge, and scientific method.

                      Of course there's much, much more, but that will do for day.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by maxgeoac 3 years, 6 months ago
                        I'll accept that.

                        Thank you, this has been fun. I don't get a chance to chat with too many people that don't start going off on me or try to convert me to their religion when things don't go their way. Intellectual conversations can be rather stimulating.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
                    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
                      I meant Pinker's estimate of human nature was flawed. Human nature may or may not be flawed, depending on your perspective, or even your mood. There are times when I wonder how God could have created the most obstinate and arrogant species in the known universe!

                      And then He reminds me that humans have this peculiarity, that they know there is a future, and that very future could be threatening, yet they choose to live it anyway.

                      So what can I say?
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
              I can put it another way:

              If I felt a man were to treat me differently, in so far as my thinking and decision making abilities were concerned, I would be insulted., Not so for feminists. That is part of what disgusts me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
              You are a fence sitter, in my opinion, then. There is no commonality in collectivism and individuality---none whatsoever.

              I have never expected anyone on this site, male or female, to treat me differently because I am a woman. All my chosen professions, and there were 3 or 4, have been those traditionally held by men. I competed with men on their terms, as they would have other men compete with them. I asked for no favors, simply because I was a woman. Not so for feminists, who claim to have been oppressed by men for centuries.

              Let me warn them: when you became feminists, you gave up your power over men.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 years, 6 months ago
    The climate change community is about to get a wakeup call, once Scott Pruitt is confirmed to head the EPA. The Oklahoma Attorney General knows all of the tricks employed by the environazis, and will call them out, line and verse. Will we have clean air and water? You bet, but not at the sacrifice of the U.S. economy and American jobs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
    Maybe scientists should try, first of all, to deduce the causes of the "Medieval Climatic Anomaly" before they go around pointing fingers at humankind!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Stormi 3 years, 6 months ago
    The activity of the sun is a major factor in climate change. Global warming has not happened in about 17 years. Placement of meters to regisiter heat were put in areas know to have bet build up, as in brick NYC courtyards. That fueled scientist to be able to declare global warming. They also found that they then could get grants, which is their lifeblood. They failed to reduce a coming decrease in the incidence of sunspots approaching. They also failed to factor in the cooling of the sun. Likely, it was overlook on p purpose.
    Who benefits, the one world government crowd. Those who want to control people using environmental measures, as Hitler once did. Take a close look at Romania today, vs. several years ago, they have moved backward. No AC, rolling brown outs, making refrigeration impossible to maintain, and no place to part the evil cars, thus making them less mobile. Mobility is a threat to those who want complete control.
    Yet no one ever mentions the fact that HAARP in Alaska and Puerto Rico, repeatedly heated the ionosphere and changed the jet stream, but then that was government action, not the people. It hs to be shown that people are causing it for people to be controlled.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
      I'm sure the Russian version of HAARP will get blamed. (Just looked it up on Wikipedia.) Certainly not the American version.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by Stormi 3 years, 6 months ago
        None of the numerous versions have every been mentioned during a meeting of environmentalists, even though at least 50 of them are operating! Are they that dumb, or just that in the loop to keep quiet?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
          I've never heard of it before. It certainly seems tremendous in scope.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Stormi 3 years, 6 months ago
            Absolutely. I actually watched a hearing of a committee of Congress discussing them, and how many there are, which actually was held months before I saw it. They never seem to mention it in public, but there was this whole panel discussing HAARP, and had an exact number of other similar facilities in other countries, such as Russia, Britain, and Eastern Europe. A scientist and former meteorologist in Calif. has mapped the bending of the jet stream which they cause. Now, if they are doing this all over the globe, and the legislators spoke also of private industry using them as well, the overall impact is far more than any supposed actions citizens are causing. I remmber a few years ago, there was a major fllod in the part of North Dakota where I used to live. I thought it strange for that time of the year. Apparently the Russians admitted they had an oops moment with their version of HAARP.. I guess it is like when the government here said they had shut down UFO investigations, but two years later, my parents' next door neighbor was still investigating UFO sightings in his same job!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
            • -1
              Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
              I knew the Russians would be blamed. I wonder if Poroshenko had anything to do with that?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by Stormi 3 years, 6 months ago
                Story at the time, they were tweaking their weather device, and the flood was the accident. Unfortunately, they US versions know well what they are doing to the jet stream, even though Congress much earlier passed legislation saying they could not use it against US citizens.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 6 months ago
    Perhaps it is best to ask what is climate? It is a metaphysical term dealing with local weather patterns over periods of years, the period lengths depending upon whether what the beholder wants occurs or not. Climate, thus, is not a concrete in nature but a averaging (a rational minds mathematical method) of weather patterns in a certain geographical area. Averages exist only in minds and do not exist in nature. Can the metric for a pattern in a chaotic nature in a local area be temperature changes over a period of time, let alone for the whole Earth as the IPCC seems to believe. Of course the main energy input to weather is the Sun and earth-water-atmosphere system will come to different equilibrium states depending upon changes to the environment and show up in weather patterns. The only greenhouse gas of any consequence is water vapor which can change rapidly from nearly none to about 4% depending upon where it is measured. Its main function (if nature had functions) is the cooling of the of the ground, water bodies, and atmosphere through latent heat due to hydrogen bond breaking and reforming to produce liquid water and as liquid water for storing energy with respect to its high heat capacity.
    The temperature of air is not just from the one part in 2500 of CO2 in those 2500 molecules and atoms of N2, O2, and Ar which do not absorb well in the infrared, but gain the energy indicated by their temperatures from transfer of energy from the ground by conduction or from transfer of rotational, translational, or vibrational energy from green house gases which occur in very small amounts other than water vapor. Some of the energy absorbed from the Sun by the N2, O2, and Ar is also in the microwave and radio energies in which they emit radiation.
    As for faulty data, there has been a very large loss of personal integrity in the last fifty to 100 years. Today, due to political or social pressure of keeping a well paying job, one is nearly required produce reports which fit the required outcome asked for by the employer. For the climate change investigation of the IPCC it is required to fudge reality due to the purpose of the study proposed by them. The study was to find out how humans affected the climate and not to study climate in all ways. Some of the results which are contrary to human caused climate change are buried in foot notes and in references rather than being discussed in the main bodies of the reports, so just a small amount of dishonesty.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 3 years, 6 months ago
    The publication was political (big surprise!) but claiming it is faulty is just grasping at straws. It makes people look desperate to find something to falsify AGW. The chart in the article shows rising temps over 18yrs at about 0.15C per decade. The "false" line is offset upwards (for whatever political reason), but BOTH lines show the same rise rate.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
    I agree with those positing the sun as primary cause of climate change, with other contributing factors.

    I was just now researching the Paleolithic Age and came across the Younger Dryas period, when apparently there was an abrupt climate change to a cooler period. Without getting into what consequences that would have had on the evolution of man, I wondered what could have caused it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Snezzy 3 years, 6 months ago
      Bursting of the ice dams of Lake Agassiz, from what I've read.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
        I've decided to add "Oscillation" and "Anomaly" to my list of "Event Horizons" as well. That's six (6).
        I was thinking of the "Allerod Oscillation, prior to the "Younger Dryas Impact. And may have contributed to the "Neolithic Revolution."
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Seer 3 years, 6 months ago
        Do you have a link? I found one hypothesis, on Wikipedia, calling it the "Younger Dryas Impact". I guess I'll add "Impact" to "Extinction", "Collapse" and "Interruption" as "Event Horizons"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo