Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I never heard was a discussion from the "experts, was the potential benefits of climate glabal warming. All I ever heard from the promoters of AGW was doom and gloom. That tells you everything you need to know.
What I never heard was a discussion from the "experts, was the potential benefits of climate glabal warming. All I ever heard from the promoters of AGW was doom and gloom. That tells you everything you need to know.
Actually the threat from any cooling would be much more severe than some degree of warming. A few years ago (when solar cycle 23 was abruptly ending), the wheat belt in western Oklahoma and Kansas experienced somewhat longer, cooler, wetter Winters/Springs for a couple of years. Much of the wheat turned to mush in the fields, and the price of wheat spike sharply.
Any change towards a colder climate would shift the wheat growing zone further south, which would be expensive for humans, as we try to make a living on this planet. Of course other consequences as well. Throughout the history of human civilization, we have tended to prosper and advance during periods of warm climate, and we have tended to die off and regress due to plagues, famines and wars during periods of colder climate.
Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't realize. Hopefully we can all be civil.
Guido la moto, most people, whether climate change deniers or climate change believers, rely on data and information provided by scientists. While that data can vary in quality, I personally trust information verified by NASA https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ and www.globalchange.gov.
So all of you discount, for example, NASA's take on climate change? You disagree with all the evidence presented on their website? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I can see how denying carbon dioxide impact on the climate greatly benefits the oil industry and the corporations that resent emissions controls. Just like the tobacco industry suppressed its detrimental health effects for decades. But how would moving to cleaner energy, and forcing industries to abide by tighter regulations, benefit NASA and other independent agencies? Are they all heavily invested in - and funded by - alternative fuels, like many politicians are funded in - and by - oil companies?
I discount it. They have found so many ways to use only the data points which help their case, modify and "smooth" their data, removing cold outliers but keeping warm outliers. NASA is as bad as the IPCC and the Met office.
I discount it. They have found so many ways to use only the data points which help their case, modify and "smooth" their data, removing cold outliers but keeping warm outliers. NASA is as bad as the IPCC and the Met office.
But what motive would they have? If you follow the money, the fossil fuel industry greatly benefits from discounting climate change. NASA and other independent organizations don't benefit either way.
I discount it. They have found so many ways to use only the data points which help their case, modify and "smooth" their data, removing cold outliers but keeping warm outliers. NASA is as bad as the IPCC and the Met office.
But what motive would they have? If you follow the money, the fossil fuel industry greatly benefits from discounting climate change. NASA and other independent organizations don't benefit either way.
Just because the oil industry benefits from continued use of fossil fuels, it does not necessarily follow that AGW is real and that fossil fuels are directly causing significantly higher temperatures.
NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC have the latitude to play with data and fairly easily present whatever "case" they are inclined to portray. That is to always "correct" the data to show warmer and warmer years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#50426bd96184
Also, here are MANY examples of temperature sensor stations being placed on hot asphalt roofs, near hot air conditioner exhaust vents, and on scorching airport tarmacs. Meanwhile, chronically cooler reporting stations were removed from the network: http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/...t-sources.html
If climate change is real, then why the need for all the data shenanigans? The "climate science" side is guilty of much more deceit than the fossil fuels side is.
And by your own "follow the money" standard, look up how much money has been paid in academic grants, transfers from western nations to third world countries, and phony carbon credit scams (of which Al Gore was an insider and a big winner). http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/251232
Just because the oil industry benefits from continued use of fossil fuels, it does not necessarily follow that AGW is real and that fossil fuels are directly causing significantly higher temperatures.
James Hansen was a big pusher of the AGW hoax. NASA had a liberal bias. Even my in-law who retired from NASA is a limousine liberal of Hansen's sort. He finally admitted that there might be a bias, and also that the earth might actually be inclined towards cooling due to the solar minimum.
NOAA, NASA, and the IPCC have the latitude to play with data and fairly easily present whatever "case" they are inclined to portray. That is to always "correct" the data to show warmer and warmer years: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta.../#50426bd96184
To be fair, just because Hansen and NASA had a liberal bias, does not in any way prove that AGW is not real.
There has to be a clear agenda/motivation on the part of NASA and other independent organizations in various countries to make it worth their while to falsify data. Let's say regulations to greatly reduce emissions and other measures are implemented world wide. As far as I know, this would not benefit NASA nor other organizations. So why would organizations and scientists all over the globe go to the trouble of falsifying information?
There has to be a clear agenda/motivation on the part of NASA and other independent organizations in various countries to make it worth their while to falsify data. Let's say regulations to greatly reduce emissions and other measures are implemented world wide. As far as I know, this would not benefit NASA nor other organizations. So why would organizations and scientists all over the globe go to the trouble of falsifying information?
I don't expect to change your opinion today, I don't believe in the AGW hoax and I have told you some of the reasons why.
Keep an open mind...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
