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.
I am very much a skeptic when it comes to climate change, but I am fully behind the private sector moving to a post FF energy economy.
The next 50 years are going to be exciting! We just need to make sure the transition is not in the name of saving the planet, while at the same time, actually distroying the planet.
A good example would be the birds and bats being killed by windmills. This is a serious issue with tens ouf thousands being killed yearly.
Now if a single migratory bird is found dead on an oil patch, heads role, the EPA goes nuts and people can actually get arrested. thats pure nuts.
I agree with you so much!
I saw a documentary. THere evidently is a wind turbine that is cylindrical. Its shape is like a tin can that's had vertical cuts in it, big enough to allow the wind in. Birds and bats do not fly into these things and they are more efficient than the pinwheeled contraptions that seem so popular.
my number one criteria for who I vote for in the next election is the guy who will be the hardest on the EPA.
I want the next president to demand resignation letters from every single employee, and a resume attached with a 2500 word essay on why they oppose regulation of CO2.
Well, thankfully, you will not be determining the results of the next election.
I have seen the EPA do cleanups in neighborhoods, preventing industrial pollution from further hurting the population. It is the federal government's job to protect us in cases in which we cannot protect ourselves. It has been found very bad policy to allow industry to self regulate. Most times it only leads to abuses.
Could the EPA be better? Sure - but it's the best we have presently. To disband it is a bit extreme, in my opinion.
Of course, the climate on this planet changes periodically. See the chart below.
It changes pretty frequently, as it turns out. Looks like it mostly stays cool, then rises for a little while, then cool again, etc. This keeps happening roughly every 100,000 to 150,000 years.
Most recently, we're in one of those relatively warm periods.
And this latest warm period started about 20,000 years ago as temperatures began rising. They seem to have reached their "higher" level around 10,000 years ago.
People who insist we empower government to spend huge resources and put us all back into the Stone Age to change this, can I ask you something?
Do you actually believe that man did something 20,000 years ago, to make the temperatures rise as they did, and kept doing it for 10,000 years until temperatures levelled off where they are today?
How many SUVs were humans driving 20,000 years ago? Or even 10,000 years ago? How many coal-fired power plants were they running during that period? How many vast swaths of forest did they clear-cut back then? How much oil did they drill? We know for a fact they didn't have catalytic converters or fuel-injection systems at the time. Could this have contributed to man's effect on the climate back then?
And they must have done even more of these filthy, polluting activites around 130,000 years ago. Temperatures spiked even higher then, than they have during the period that started 20,000 years ago.
Now, if we can only find out what man STOPPED doing 120,000 years ago, when temperatures fell back to their relatively cool levels again, we might have a way to control the present crisis the Global Whatever fanatics keep caterwauling about. Can we put the fanatics to work researching the industrial records, newspaper accounts, and internet archives from 110,000 yeas ago, to find out how they did it?
Do you really think this is somehow news to anyone who has remotely paid attention in science class over the last several decades? Are you seriously that clueless to suggest you have just poked some HUGE hole in these evil loonie liberal scientists' theory?
Quote:
People who insist we empower government to spend huge resources and put us all back into the Stone Age to change this, can I ask you something?
Lastly, I just have to bask in my amusement and smugness as I get to point out the irony here. You and the global warming alarmists both have to sound the warning bells. They alarm us to the impending catastrophic natural disasters and you alarm us that will we give up freedoms and technology and money to make the environment a better place. Two peas in a pod, y'all should marry each other
The ongoing atmospheric spraying (and jet stream manipulation with HAARP facilities ) can and does cool large regions of the planet for limited periods, but at what cost? The ongoing global geoengineering programs are making climate change far worse and quite literally are tearing the planets life support systems apart.
I am very much a skeptic when it comes to climate change, but I am fully behind the private sector moving to a post FF energy economy.
The next 50 years are going to be exciting! We just need to make sure the transition is not in the name of saving the planet, while at the same time, actually distroying the planet.
A good example would be the birds and bats being killed by windmills. This is a serious issue with tens ouf thousands being killed yearly.
Now if a single migratory bird is found dead on an oil patch, heads role, the EPA goes nuts and people can actually get arrested. thats pure nuts.
LOLz. Commercial fossil fuels have been around for over a hundred years yet it still receives hundreds of billions per year in subsidies globally. Globally, the majority of O&G companies are state owned so that's a lot of govt money. No doubt America can slightly turn the tide with it's recent shale boom, but those state oil companies are investing here too for a share of the energy. If you think the private sector is solely going to get the ball rolling then you are solely mistaken. It will be a combination of academic institutions (private and public), private venture capitalists, and welcoming govt regulations.
As for the power of the future, it is no doubt solar. The amount of total potential solar energy we could receive would absolutely dwarf that of everything terrestrially.
TN05-17 is by far the most influential Southern Hemisphere core in Marcott et al 2013- it’s Marcott’s YAD061, so to speak. Its influence is much enhanced by the interaction of short-segment centering in the mid-Holocene and non-robustness in the modern period. Marcott’s SHX reconstruction becomes worthless well before the 20th century, a point that they have not yet admitted, let alone volunteered.
This is however not the only problem with Marcott et al.
Nothing wrong with errors being found, but isn't that what peer review is for? None of this was brought up in peer review? Why is it that the public is the only one that can seem to find these glaring errors in such "esteemed" work published by "credible" journals?
This is why when people say "Peer Reviewed" holding their nose high, they sound silly.
Another problem is that McIntyre finds these problems, sends them emails inquiring about details and informing them of such issues and they... don't respond to him. Instead, they run off to the propaganda site RC and post a FAQ that plays shell games avoiding the specifics of the issues McIntyre brought up. I think McIntyre has proven his work multiple times with Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc... So the only reason to "avoid" him is because his questions impedes the "cause".
This is Mann/Hansen/Jones/Briffa all over again. Push out some sensationalized garbage, then run to the bunkers to defend it through political games in the media.
This is however not the only problem with Marcott et al.
Nothing wrong with errors being found, but isn't that what peer review is for? None of this was brought up in peer review? Why is it that the public is the only one that can seem to find these glaring errors in such "esteemed" work published by "credible" journals?
This is why when people say "Peer Reviewed" holding their nose high, they sound silly.
Another problem is that McIntyre finds these problems, sends them emails inquiring about details and informing them of such issues and they... don't respond to him. Instead, they run off to the propaganda site RC and post a FAQ that plays shell games avoiding the specifics of the issues McIntyre brought up. I think McIntyre has proven his work multiple times with Mann, Hansen, Jones, etc... So the only reason to "avoid" him is because his questions impedes the "cause".
This is Mann/Hansen/Jones/Briffa all over again. Push out some sensationalized garbage, then run to the bunkers to defend it through political games in the media.
No wonder people think Climate science is a joke!
How do you know all this? How can you be so sure of all of this? Because some skeptic blog told you so? Do you know what confirmation bias is?
Do you ever read the comment sections in Watt, climateaduit, and realclimate to look at the responses from scientists and armchair scientists on both sides?
Here's a good response from someone who asks:
Quote:
So when the NYT trumpets the following, asking the world to spend trillions more on “green” energy, sans nuclear, what am I supposed to think?
“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age. ”
While I hope for humanity, you guys have it wrong, I hope for science you have it right. I can’t imagine the backlash to all this expense if you are wrong.
Response
Quote:
Perhaps I'm being obtuse, but I don't see how a better understanding of global temperature history forces either the NYT or you to spend any money on anything. Whether the energy mix of the future includes an expansion of nuclear or not, this has nothing to do with temperatures 5000 years ago. Nonetheless, the observations here, and in other reconstructions and in the instrumental record indicate that temperatures since the Early Holocene (particularly in the high Northern hemisphere) have been falling slightly (mostly in line with expectations from orbital forcing), and that over the last 100 years or so, something anomalous has happened - coincident with the dramatic uptick in greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution. GHGs are continuing to rise (even accelerating) and basic physics, as well as more sophisticated models, indicate that future changes will be larger still. This implies a risk to society since we have an enormous investment in the climate status quo. However, how society deals with that risk is a decision for politicians and the public to make - it does not follow linearly from the science I just outlined. If you think the benefits of nuclear outweigh the potential costs (or vice versa), you should make your voice heard on that topic. Likewise if you think that energy efficiency, or wind or solar, or carbon capture or adaptation and mitigation are more sensible responses. Whatever you decide, it is not not determined uniquely by the science in general, and certainly not by this single reconstruction.
For all the whining about climate scientists on both sides, in the end people just want to understand what is going on.
How do you know all this? How can you be so sure of all of this? Because some skeptic blog told you so? Do you know what confirmation bias is?
Do you ever read the comment sections in Watt, climateaduit, and realclimate to look at the responses from scientists and armchair scientists on both sides?
Here's a good response from someone who asks:
Because it is evident in the points they show concerning the research. Seriously, you can't be this frigging dense?
Here is the problem. You go on and on with your nose up the arse of CAGW researches claiming one thing or another and how they are so great, so smart, and we should accept their claims.
The thing is, as I have been trying to tell you from the start, science is not a process of how far you can shove your head up someones arse. It isn't a process of "who is the coolest guy" or "who has the shiniest name badge". It is a process of verification, validation, and replication. You ask... how can I accept these comments from a "blog"? It is because they take a look at the research, evaluate it and discuss the problems with the methods used. They don't say "OMG look at me I am a guy in a cool white coat and a neat shiny name badge that says expert, believe what I say!", they actually have to evaluate the information, make a case, point out the issues (ie they show their work unlike those you worship, that is you can download everything they provide and then check their own claims if they are pulling data files or verify through public records they use).
That brings me to the final point concerning this. In science, the person proclaiming the hypothesis correct MUST demonstrate its resilience (ie it is correct) in ALL circumstances. It must PASS every evaluation. If it can not be explained why it fails, why a result is "unanswered" then it is... WRONG. This isn't horse shoes and hand grenades were "close enough" is "good enough". One simple fact that conflicts with their assessment can bring down their house of cards. This is why it is called "Science" and not "subjective artful theory". They MUST establish their position through proper means. So when that "blog" evaluates a given assumption they make and points out they are using a single source to make their claim or relying on statistical means to establish their position, it simply means... THEY ARE NOT SURE... and if you are NOT SURE in science, then YOU DON'T KNOW and if you DON'T KNOW, then your conclusions are considered WRONG, GUESSES, PULLING IT OUT OF YOUR ARSE!
You don't know this though... because you have been indoctrinated with the concept that somehow title and position establish validity. You have even been deluded to think there are multiple meanings to basic concepts. That valid can mean something other than what it means. That simply establishes that you need to go back and smack your instructors upside the head for screwing up your education and if it wasn't their fault... well... maybe you need to spend some time questioning your own methods of evaluation in the mirror. Either way, I am tired of teaching the most basic aspects to which anyone with a basic high school education in the sciences understands. Pull your head out of the sand and educate yourself. /boggle
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
For all the whining about climate scientists on both sides, in the end people just want to understand what is going on.
I am calling BS on this. You don't want to know what is going on. You want the claims being made to line up with your dogma. Countless times in these discussions when you get backed into a corner concerning the science, you go off about the environment, how we need to be this or that, save this or that, conserve, sustain, etc...
BS! You have a goal and climate science propaganda has been your tool. Now, when all the evidence coming out is showing they have been running fast and loose with the actual "evidence", you go on about how "people just want to know". Yeah, they wanted to know so much that they coined insulting terms like denier, Anti-science, Flat earthers, Polluters, Oil Cronies, etc... and attacked, dismissed any discussion on the issue that wasn't kissing the feet of the dogma.
Sorry pal, your "We just want to know..." /innocent look
Is pure back peddling garbage and a joke. Sell it to some idiot who will buy that junk. I will not.
Don't sugar coat it Nomander... Tell us what you REALLY think.
Another great post!
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.
