10

More on 'global warming'

Posted by $ TomB666 3 years, 3 months ago to Politics
70 comments | Share | Flag

In my opinion, the great climate debate, which has swung from cooling to warming over the last 40 years is really about political power.
SOURCE URL: http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ Temlakos 3 years, 3 months ago
    Worse than that. Michael Mann, of Hockey Stick fame, refuses to furnish his data to the judge in a lawsuit he himself filed. That puts him in contempt of court. The judge might now find his detractors were telling the truth all along. Those same detractors say this globe was even warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today. A lot warmer. Civilization survived that period; it will survive the worst that is allegedly happening now.

    And Michael Mann is a dry-labber. So are his colleagues.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CTYankee 3 years, 3 months ago
    Gee, ya think? {sorry} It's perhaps a more complex issue than anyone -- including the so called climate scientists -- realizes.

    I happen to own a solar company, so professionally, I suppose i'm solidly on the green side, but to me the green I'm after is the Greenback. I only got into the field because I saw an enormous potential to collect free money in the form of raw sunshine.

    16 years later I wish there was a way I could put a pin in the discussion or just bury it. The climate changes. so what! Until the Alarmists can convincingly demonstrate what the CORRECT climate is, they can all go take a flying leap off the nearest cliff. I'm tired of arguing with them.

    --In Liberty
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years, 3 months ago
      Look to the Maunder Minimum, a 400 year Grand Solar Minimum cycle that brings colder, more cloudy and unpredictable weather.

      I stayed away from solar because of this fact. It wouldn't be prudent seeing how inefficient solar is and how much more cloudy the future will be.
      A battery back up would be my choice; using solar, wind and at least another source to keep them charged.

      Can't blame you for cashing in on the trend, in some parts of the country it will be valuable; in others, it won't help much but still, better than doing nothing to obtain at least some degree of self sufficiency.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 3 years, 3 months ago
    just read that Greenland had the coldest july 4 in its history; -33 C.
    I do lots of business in Alaska and so far this summer they are having the coldest summer in years. maybe this is all a tell tale sign of what is to come this coming winter. so much for global warming.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 3 years, 3 months ago
    We still have the reliable 400 year climate cycle which will have the opposite effects of what the power hungry political delete are pointing us to, and drooling for profit at our misfortune.
    A proper observation of history will ensure one will not be caught with their pants down.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 3 months ago
    I think you are correct! I've spent the last 15 years reviewing everything that I could find on the subject and have come to the conclusion that the climate is changing, has always been changing and will continue to change even if all humans are extinguished from the planet. I challenge anyone to provide data that has not been manipulated that proves differently.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by marsh113 3 years, 3 months ago
    The models used that predict global warming are not reliable. Study chaos theory and you will see why. Milankovitch cycles approximate past temperature changes over thousands of years. The Cranbrook Institute of Science in Bloomfield, Michigan provides an interactive model that illustrates this. Enjoy.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 3 years, 3 months ago
    Based on all the bogus claims made about so-called global warming, you might just as well flip a coin to determine global temperatures. Or stick a wet finger in the air. Or stick it somewhere else.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
    Enough people saying something makes it "true". Gore, Obama, Racheal Carter and the environmental zealots (to separate from just environmentalists).

    It is very clear that the direct greenhouse effect of the greenhouse gasses is wholly incapable of changing the temperature as much as is asserted (perhaps the effect is consistent with the unadjusted data). The ONLY models that correlate include hypothesized effects such a CO2 increasing water vapor. These effects are not understood or physics-based. Any climatologist will confirm this, perhaps after obfuscating for a while.

    Those that know, know that they do not know, but refuse to disclose their ignorance to preserve power. Just like churches...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 years, 3 months ago
    I so pissed off at all these Climate Change freaks all they can do is create a lot of verbal noise and try to force the rest of the world to do their bidding. It's amazing how these people along with the progressives are losing their minds over this theoretical scenario.
    I have done my own green thing even though I'm not in the climate change camp. I have solar panels on my roof, I just purchased a used Nissan Leaf (which a leased vehicle) and yes the battery pack is slightly depleted (9 out 12). I did purchase an extended warranty which covers the battery pack. The vehicle is a blast to drive around town. Plus, My wife and I keep adding trees to our property (we do get our hands dirty).
    That's my recommendation to the Climate Change freaks stop talking and personally do something ie, solar panels, buy electric cars, & plant trees, instead of browbeating everyone else.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Stormi 3 years, 3 months ago
    I completely agree with TomB666! I have been following this lunacy since taking science classes at a college years ago and discussing the just beginning trend to call it global warming. The dept. head did not buy the hype. I continued to follow the writing of Tom DeWeese who went to the same high school I did. Then I began reading Dr. Ileana Paugh, and how even Romania, her former home, was beginning set back by Agenda 21.I can't believe anyone still listens to journalism major Gore on anything! It is so clear the science of the alarmists was skewed for the purpose of getting grant money by pleasing the one world globalists. It is all about getting control of every aspect of our lives via the environment. It is not about saving anyone, except the power and fortunes of the elite.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I don't get "strong political positions." I also don't get why accepting a theory is not an objective position.

    There's probably a book on this. It's not a question that can be answered while standing on one foot.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
      Because you are basing decisions on an assumption, that you refuse to accept challenge to internally or externally. This is dogmatic, not logical.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
        "you are basing decisions on an assumption, that you refuse to accept challenge to internally or externally."
        What does this mean? What is the assumption? What is internal or external challenge?

        Maybe you cannot explain it in this forum. If you ever are in my area maybe we could go to dinner. Maybe I would get it of a sudden in person. Thanks for trying.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
    I think the only debate is the one that comes when people don't like the facts they rationalize "at least be open to the controversy." This was the main argument for not teaching evolution for awhile: teach the controversy, teach the great evolution debate. LOL It's similar to the reactions of people who don't like the facts about homeopathy, GMOs, "organic" foods, the paranormal, etc. If you don't like the facts, turn it into a great "debate" or "controversy".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
      But CG, you are not presenting facts or argument, just an ad hominem attack.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • -1
        Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
        Not at all. I'm saying there's no great controversy. There's science and wishful thinking. It's almost comical to watch people outside their area with no understanding start with a desired answer and look for any anomalies that might make their wishes come true.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
          You still have produced facts or an argument.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • -2
            Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
            An argument for what claim? My only claim is a) the science shows a significant anthropogenic component to global warming and b) making up a non-existent "controversy" is a way of avoiding the facts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
              We have had this discussion before. You assert a), but do not defend it. Statistics shows an anthropogenic component, but I assert you can not show science. Show me.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -1
                Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
                No. I am not a climate scientist. I am only aware of what climate science knows. If there is a massive conspiracy within science, I will be misled. This is why science, by its nature, invites new evidence and new theories. It's why we accept scientific theories but don't believe them as religious people believe.

                The massive conspiracy view reminds me of people with a grave disease who do research on their own and conclude big pharma has engineered a conspiracy surrounding their illness and it actually can be treated with homeopathic remedies. "Show me the evidence that Western (they mean science-based) medicine is correct. Show me abstracts from peer-reviewed oncology journals." I don't know what to tell them. If there's a conspiracy that can be found out easily by a dilettante reading the abstracts, then everything I know is wrong. Maybe there's a massive conspiracy, and they've figured it out.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 3 months ago
                  Perhaps it is best to decide whether there is a science in question. Is it a science to study averages of something such as local weather patterns and call it 'climate science' or is it just an application of probability theory as is quantum mechanics which deals with ensembles of particles and pretending that the probabilities apply to single particles. With weather, one can take average temperatures, etc, locally and then average the the averages together and pretend to have an over all climate for the Earth, but all one has is fun playing with numbers and nothing definite about reality.
                  As for homeopathy, it should have been thrown on the pseudoscience pile long ago. It takes little thought to believe that when a medicine is diluted at 30C that one has one molecule of medicine to 100^30 molecules of solvent or in other words no chance of medicine in, say, a sample of a few cc dose. Also there is absolutely no evidence that the solvent has somehow remembered that some medicine has been diluted in it. Of course, some lucky person might get a molecule of the medicine in a dose. Nothing but a placebo.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
                  So you are taking the same position most lay people took around 1,400 regarding heliocentricism. Maybe you should change your signto "CatholicGuy".
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • -3
                    Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
                    It sort of is the same story: People rejecting science because its findings are troubling
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
                      You are a smart guy CG, I am disappointed you won't engage in a discussion of the technical basis, but feel compelled to engage in asserting political action.
                      If you may recall, I was ambivalent on this subject a few years ago when I joined the Gulch. At one point I argued that the movement had benefit, regardless of being right, in that if enough renewable sources were developed, the Middle East would be choked of funding for terrorism. I argued this with my brother for a while. However, I studied and studied to develop a understanding of the basics. As I have noted several things are absolutely true, but not simplified in the media:
                      1. Human produced greenhouse gasses can not produce the measured warming by direct means (the affect of the reflected and absorbed radiation in the atmosphere).
                      2. All models with reasonable correlation to the modern warming (minus the recent plateau) include an arbitrary, hypothetical water vapor positive feedback mechanism to provide for the effect.
                      These two facts, a knowledgeable climate scientist will acknowledge, perhaps begrudgingly.
                      3. This information is completely obfuscated in the net media, and the public is almost completely ignorant of it.
                      4. The behavior of the net public is a lynch mob, labeling alternate views, asserting alternate views are anti-environment. It is almost impossible to discuss this in many situations without hostility, which is absurd, and precisely the type of behavior ignorant people use to avoid exposing their ignorance.

                      There is nothing good from decisions made in ignorance. This is a feel-good, philanthropic movement just like socialism. It may be correct, but not for any reason presented to date.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 3 months ago
                        So smart he voted for Obama twice and for Hitlery while claiming for the past 4 years how much he supports objectivist philosophy, individual liberty, and free markets.
                        Don't expect him to understand the evidence you have presented because it doesn't agree with his GW religious belief. He uses just as much rational thought on this issue as he does when voting.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                      • -1
                        Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
                        Your message talks about A) "asserting political action", B) "the movement", C) the popularized perception of climate science in the MSM, D) socialism-like thinking, and then the message conflates them with E) science. I'm talking about E, while you're talking about four other interesting but unrelated things.
                        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 3 months ago
                          No, you are not talking about science. You are stating the word "science" without actually saying any scientific things. In much of today's internet discussions there is no attempt to actually discuss the science other than as some type of polling event. (e.g. 97% of scientists agree...)

                          This is an objectivist site. You need to state objective facts and theories. If you don't personally know the science behind the conclusions being offered, perhaps you should not be so enthusiastic about supporting them. And if you do know, share.

                          This is a pretty amazingly capable group of people.
                          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
                            So in your view, if you do not understand something down to a level of being able to critique a scholarly paper in the field, you cannot accept any of the science? This means we know almost nothing.
                            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 3 months ago
                              Well, I do try to skim actual papers. I have looked at the data from the Vostok ice core (which incidentally reflects the warming period that I'm told was only in the Northern Hemisphere.

                              You keep confidently stating there is a problem when even the IPCC projects a wide variety of projected increases (which are not tracking with reality). The news generally only covers the most extreme possibilities -- because it's not very interesting to say there will be minor warming and it will be generally beneficial.

                              I recently saw an article promoting what the sea level would be if all the ice melted -- even though no serious theory projects that.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                              • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
                                "I do try to skim actual papers."
                                If your semi-outsider perspective allows you to propose a hypothesis no one thought of that turns out to be true, esp something that up-ends our understanding of climatology, that would be great.

                                "it will be generally beneficial."
                                I know even less about this than climate science, but I thought the evidence was overwhelming it will be a net cost, unless we were heading toward a glacial maximum on the cycle of glaciation/deglaciation. I would be shocked to learn I misunderstood this basic fact. This is so far outside my area though. I would probably struggle to understand even the abstracts of papers in this field.
                                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                            • Posted by $ Thoritsu 3 years, 3 months ago
                              If you don't know the basics, and people have studied, do understand them and are willing to discuss them, then it is wholly inappropriate to take strong political positions founded in these basics and argue with people who do and are willing to discuss them. Just say, "I believe", and stop entering into these discussions.

                              You are entitled to "believe", but it is NOT an Objectivity position.
                              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 3 months ago
      I don't dislike the 'facts'. I just find very few of them. Yes, atmospheric CO2 can trap heat. Much of the rest of the 'facts' are theories that haven't been demonstrated to track with reality. The data on actual temperatures has been heavily massaged by agencies that are the recipient of billions of dollars in funding to research "climate change" (no longer global warming). Even past records are adjusted to make sure that the graph looks the way it is supposed to. (Shades of 1984's Ministry of Truth).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 3 months ago
        Explain to me how CO2 can trap heat. I do not believe it possible and need proof.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 3 years, 3 months ago
          Ok, I take it back. I was just trying to give him an inch. I am aware that CO2 absorbs energy in specific areas of the spectrum and I would assume that that prevents at least some from escaping. I'm willing to be told otherwise.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by edweaver 3 years, 3 months ago
            You don't have to take it back. I'm just looking for the proof because I can't find any logic that a gas can trap heat. Even if it were possible, I can't believe such a small amount of it could change the Earth's temperature. I also don't understand if it did trap heat how the temperature in the mountain elevations could be be cooler. And cold air falls and warm air rises. Again looking for the proof.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
        "billions of dollars"
        I actually agree with this. I suspect because burning stuff is associated with trillions of dollars of economic activity,there is very strong political pressure to get a certain, desirable answer. But I cannot make stuff up based on that. I have to accept the data we have today.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 3 months ago
          The real data we have today does not support your untenable, irrational position. The real data exposes the fraud of the entire effort to manipulate and bias the data for the purpose of enslaving the people and destroying what is left of the free market.
          Who pays you to come here and spread these lies?
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by fosterj717 3 years, 3 months ago
            Spot on! There has been way too much hype with very little "real" empirical data (anything that does not support the "preferred" side is totally disregarded and not factored into any of the protocols that would constitute "good" science.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by Lucky 3 years, 3 months ago
            For a change, I outrank ffa for cynicism:

            There are some who propagate nonsense, not because they get paid which would be
            bad enough, but because their peer group admires this flavor-of-the-month group-think.
            Anything that shows you are concerned to save the planet gets brownie points, the
            main cost is putting aside rationality.
            The technical terms are virtue signalling, moral posturing, and what I call (fake) altruism.

            To act from self-interest without values by taking bribes is bad.
            Acting out of thoughtless altruism is worse.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Charner59 3 years, 3 months ago
      Exactly the methods of mystics of religion,faith and politics. I do not accept the premise that humans can control climate change.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
        It's not a premise to a larger argument. Other people may use it as premise, but I am not here. I'm just accepting the evidence we have today.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by fosterj717 3 years, 3 months ago
          I assume that includes the fact that The French and Russian scientists who discovered that an ice coring going back over 10,000 years (or was the coring the deepest coring going down 10,000ft?) showing the instances of global warming (cyclic) and the happenstance of CO2 increases?

          If you are familiar with this recent report, you will now know that the rise in CO2 only came AFTER the rise in the earth's temperature.

          This does stand what the "Man-made" Global Warming/Climate Change have been asserting. I guess now these Science "whores" (sorry, did not intend to demean a profession that actually produces something for a profit) will have to "defend" their (pardon the expression - "Junk" science) with a better empirical approach.

          I can't wait to see a real debate on this issue!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 years, 3 months ago
            I love scientific breakthroughs and it would be doubly great if a breakthrough showed something hugely desirable to humankind, in this case that carbon emissions do not have a costly impact on the environment. I actually think something like that could happen, as in the case of discovery of evidence butter is more healthful than margarine. It will not happen in the form of discovery scientists are a bunch of whores. That's childish. It will come from anomalies adding up, and someone finding a theory that explains them. As Asimov said it's less "eureka" and more "that's funny..."
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo