Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
    Thanks for the well written explaination Walter .
    You mention the Suns role and in fact that is the driver of temp increases from Late 1800's to 1998
    Unfortunately this heat hysteria has been a constant drum beat for the last 2 decades and it could not have happened at a worse time. The Grand Solar minimum, that cycle of the sun. We have now entered into the begining of what in the past has been referred to as a mini ice age.
    It has weakened our electromagnetisphere and the results as history shows is a devastation of crop losses. In addition over the last 2000 years a major volcano blows during each grand solar minimum spewing huge amounts of particles blocking out the sun like the clouds that are formed by the cosmic rays.
    Not only normalcy but the AGW will certainly hurt our adjustment to indoor farming which absolutely will be required for survival.
    Obviously you should not take my word, but you should seriously look into it. As a starting point Adapt2030 will give reference points to his info and he encourages every listener to do their own homework. Suspicious observers gives a rundown on the space weather. Then John Casey a highly credited man and his book. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTJCY...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
      Thanks, Dobrien. I have read about much of what you mention, but certainly not even remotely mastered the information. I followed the Web site WattsUp ("the world's most visited Web site on climate change." There is little they don't touch upon. A wrote a whole article on the attacks on scientist Willie Soon who pursues studies of the causality of climate change in solar terms, as I understand it.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 6 years, 10 months ago
    I think you are referring to my statement: "Seldom has a scientific viewpoint been so motivated to propagandize the school and colleges and popular press. The reason is clear: what is at stake is not a scientific theory and its supporting evidence.

    /"What is at stake is a fundamentalist attack on capitalism..."

    Meaning that "climate science" has been a propaganda machine on a vast scale... urging sweeping political action on its conclusions almost as soon as they are published and long before they are confirmed...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
      Yes. I'm obviously against the attacks on capitalism, which are real. The calls for sweeping and intrusive political action are real. Reality doesn't care. We can't deny things because of final consequences.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago
    The climate change advocates ave been debunked and discredited so often and so well, that trying to convince them that there is no climate change of any significance caused by Man is like trying to convince religious folks that Jesus, if he existed at all, was a powerful Jewish rabbi who had a new way of sermonizing.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 6 years, 10 months ago
    Thank you for the article, I'll link it to the few liberal friends I am still allowed to talk (email only) to. Perhaps this climate issue needs to remain on the top of the current topic list for as long as possible, as the next issue "they" will pursue and attack might even be worse. Can this issue be connected to the Russian conspiracy?

    However, forget about the small CO2 reduction percentages they are talking about, I've got a simple solution that could/would actually reduce our man made CO2 contributions to the atmosphere by about 50%. The 50% or so of the population that actually believe in this climate crises should set the example for the rest of us naysayers to follow, not by trying to jam it down our throats. I'd suggest that they get rid of their fossil fuel burning vehicles, shut off their electricity, and reduced all of their CO2 emission contributions by 100%. Okay, give them a break, in reality, just set the example by cutting down by only 50% to start the ball rolling. If it proves beneficial, we'll all follow along. We don’t need official agreements and commissions to try to do the right thing. Perhaps we can even do better on our own in developing technologies that might actually work. Private enterprise seems to do a much better job at making things better anyway. I’m always astounded at the technologies that come out of Israel, that better our world. I was wrong once before, I didn't believe in seat belts, I bitched about them, and had excuses for not using them. As cars started to put them in I eventually started to use them. Now I automatically use them even to simply back out of my garage. I learned by example. Somehow it became law anyway, but who cares now, it makes good sense. And, Paris doesn't sound like a reasonable place to conduct any type of agreement to me. I'm a Vietnam Veteran, look what the Paris Peace Accords, and our representatives, did for Vietnam. We dumped them, I'm still embarrassed for our congress about that. It didn't have to be that way. We signed an agreement then we all but ignored it. Hmmm, remember part of that failure had to do with trying and succeeding in taking a president down. Perhaps now that's what it's really all about.

    Same scenario for Obamacare, give the people the choice and let them sign up for Obamacare, or Trumpcare. Do like the TV and internet providers, make them sign up under a two year contract and penalize them for early cancelation. And make sure our term limited representatives have the exact same choices.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 6 years, 9 months ago
      Thanks for the excellent post and ideas. Vietnam and even more Cambodia were horrors brought on by Watergate. It was Nixon's toughness that drove the North Vietnamese to negotiate the treaty. And S. Vietnam probably agreed or kept silent because everyone knew Nixon would enforce the treaty. Then, the liberal media in Watergate brought him down. And Congress enacted the crippling war power act. A year after the treaty in Paris, the North Vietnamese Army came surging down South along the Ho Chi Minh trail. For the first time, their army was opened attacking S. Vietnam, and, more important, IN the open. Military men urged Gerald Ford to use the huge bombing power of the Seventh Fleet to deal them a death blow. But the humiliation of Watergate and the War powers act kept Ford from acting for the honor of America to keep the treaty. And so American left Vietnam hanging for helicopter struts. And so a million or more Cambodian died under Pol Pot and South Vietnamese died in thousands trying to escape by boat. And a prominent S. Vietnamese general wrote sadly to a top U.S. general: "We trusted you and fought to the end, but now night has come for South Vietnam. I wish your great country all happiness under these skies." And that general was one crucified by the North Vietnam, the record showing he lived for three days on the cross.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by NealS 6 years, 9 months ago
        Thank you for your post, it made my day, well I"ll save it for tomorrow. It’s refreshing to know that someone else sees it for what it was, not for what John Kerry told our congress and the world. I guess that’s why Obama hired him, because they both agreed and falsely told the world how rotten the US was. It irks me when someone talks about how we lost the war in Vietnam. We weren’t even there when our congress challenged the North to just go in and take the South. How can they say we lost when we won every battle, killed millions of them, and entered into the Paris Peace Accords that both sides completely agreed to? It was the North that started a new war and overran the South, with our pathetic congresses support. It was the John Kerry’s and his tribe of liars that made us look bad to the world for the atrocities he may have committed while serving just part of a tour. He was supposed to be an Naval Officer. Officers are required to put an immediate stop to atrocities and things they observe that are not in line with the Geneva Convention, at least that's the case in the Army, I guess I’m not sure about the Navy. All he did was come home and lie and complain for personal benefit, backed up by other liars that confirmed his lies, and many of them were never even there, many not even ever in the service. Funny how no one thought to check them out before listening to their bull. The best read on Vietnam, Bruce Herschensohn’s book on the Vietnam War, “An American Amnesia”. Or the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhyiJ...

        Today I see the same things happening, our politicians, the media, and half the population, telling the world how bad the US is. With the career politicians we have, if they were any good, wouldn’t we think perhaps they might have done something about where we are today. Should they not be held responsible to taking us to where we are? They run the show, do a lousy job, then blame someone else. People in mind are not smart enough to see the truth, they react mostly on emotion and keep electing freaks like John Kerry, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, (Harry's gone), even Chuck Schumer now. If they can’t find someone else to blame for their personal failures they just take their que from Obama and blame George Bush, or today our President Trump. It will take years for us to even comprehend the damage that Obama and the likes like John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, have done to this country. And it will take at least another term for Trump to change the direction they took us. Fortunately Hillary's most recent actions are actually showing the dems her true colors. And if the world can't see Maxine Water's true colors by now, we're doomed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
    Climate "science" is a radical religion. One should never expect rational thinking from a religious fanatic. AGW is a powerful political tool and that is what matters to the collectivists. Its reality is irrelevant.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 6 years, 9 months ago
    Very good essay. These Greenies only deserve a 6'x2'x6' hole in the ground with a fast growing tree sapling (like an Ash) taped to their chest and cover them up then water.
    All the crazy Greenies do is gnashing of teeth, beating of chests and crying how bad Global Warming is. If they believe in it so insanely, they should get off their gluteus maximus and go plant Trees!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 6 years, 9 months ago
    The UN does not even believe what they are pushing, only that people believe it so they can control them. That means moving people into urban high rises with no parking (thus raising the cost of housing)., getting rid of capitalism, ending A/C (guess they don't care about people with asthma), limiting population via forced birth control, or as Bill Gates stated on onve video "vaccines are the way to go", and so many other ways to control us all. Al Gore a fournalism major, has played his loax with carbon credit trade offs, doing noting for the world climate - but Ivanka Trump (economics major) met with him first. Worries me. If they really worried about climate, they would worry about government controlled manipulation of climate via HAARP (in Alaska and Puerto Rico "High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program), or HAMP (Hurricane Aerosol Microphysics Program). Then there is the new one where they are shooting crushed clay and ice pellets into the atmosphere from balloons to block sun rays and lower earth temperature - all at a time when the sun is in a cooing phase, and solar activity is expected to remain calm. The one worlders and UN are looking to get the control they ave long wanted, and they have dumbed down the students to help make it a complete.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
    I talks about people make up politically-motivated nonsense like "capitalism will lead to catastrophe," and how history proves them wrong. Then it seems to say if other people are making stuff up that they wish were true, we ought to balance it by doing likewise.

    The point about NYT is completely correct. NYT mentions "carbon pollution" twice in one article: https://nyti.ms/2stfsY5 I agree it's a questionable choice of words. We're talking about human activities playing a large roll in increasing the concentration of a gas that was 300ppm to 500ppm and changing concentrations of trace gases. That's not "pollution" like soot. From a legal/economic standpoint, though, it's something people do on their property that preponderance of the evidence shows damages the value of other property. So I can forgive them colloquially calling it "pollution," the same way we talk about "noise pollution".

    I would go further on your counter-argument to the capitalism-leads-to-war argument. Not only were world wars not caused by capitalism, but modern capitalism has eliminated (so far) the spoils of war. If China assembles PCBs and "FANG" companies put them to use for a billion customers around the world, there's no incentive for the gov't to fight each other to try to have more of the value-chain within their borders. The saying goes no two countries that both have McDonalds have gone to war. (I think there are a few small counter examples, e.g. Serbia and US.)

    I see the last two paragraphs completely reversed from your view. You rightly say never before has their been such motivation to get a specific answer from science. Maybe it's comparable to the motivation to find evidence humans were created rather than evolved along side other animals. All the wealth we have created by releasing energy stored in carbon bonds provides a huge incentive to deny science showing hidden costs to it. There are a few extremists you quote who apparently really are happy if it turns out what powers our economy is more costly than we thought. I do not know how those people think. I can't imagine anyone wants to go back to a pre-industrial existence. The vast majority of us want to find ways to keep building more wealth and we wish none of our actions accidentally damaged other people's property. Never before has there been so much motivation to get a desired answer, indeed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
      http://appinsys.com/globalwarming/Six...
      As can be seen from the above figures, the two cycles were nearly identical, and yet the IPCC says the models can explain the early 1900s cycle with only natural forcings, but anthropogenic CO2 is needed for the later cycle. There appears to be a serious problem with the models when two identical cycles have two very different causes.

      The cycle length is approximately 62 years, with maxima around 1879, 1942 and 2002, and minima around 1910 and 1972.

      When the claim is made that the Earth has warmed 0.74 degrees from 1906 – 2005 (IPCC AR4 [http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-rep...]), they are spuriously ignoring the 60-year cycle and arbitrarily choosing a start and end for a linear trend within a non-linear cycle. The red line on the figure below shows the 0.74 degrees per century. The linear warming trend shown when accounting for the cycle is actually about 0.4 degrees per century as shown by the blue line on the figure below.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 9 months ago
        This reminds me of signal processing, which is what I studied in school but rarely practice.

        Is this saying the solar system's changing center of mass affects the area under the curve of the earth's distance^2 from the sun? If so, people in this field ought to be able to work out these integrals for each year and then see if that correlates with the 60-year cycle in temperatures. (I'm way outside my field, so I don't even know if the 60-year cycle is real. )
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 9 months ago
          +1 for reading it even if you "don't even know if the60 year cycle is real". http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astron...
          “If this trend continues, there will be almost no spots in Cycle 25, and we might be going into another Maunder Minimum,” Penn states. The first Maunder Minimum occurred during the second half of the 17th century. Almost no spots were seen on the Sun during this time, which coincided with Europe’s Little Ice Age.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 9 months ago
            Sunspots are not well understood and predictable. My first sunspot maximum was in '91. I worked a lot of DX on 10 meters, sometimes even at night to Australia.

            Orbital mechanics are predictable. I wonder if they've integrated for each year and compared the results to the cycle. I can think of other ways to do it, like plot d^2 vs daily temperature (not integrating) and then trying to remove the effects of the seasons. The trouble with that, though, is you can post hoc cherry pick to get the results you want. The yearly integral method makes the most sense to me. This is way outside my field though.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 9 months ago
              "Sunspots are not very well understood and unpredictable" not for everyone. If you want to understand more than most everyone , go to
              http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/ A and watch
              The extremely well made tutorial about our planets sun. Short and concise . The site has a daily 2-4 min sun forecast i.e. Solar winds , sunspot, CME's
              I will be impressed CG if you educate yourself and
              Consider this Grand Solar Minimum for you and you families future.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo