I'm in complete agreement with your last sentence. Nor can we draw a good conclusion from less then two centuries worth of documentable weather information. Everything else (ice core samples, etc.) is anecdotal, based on suppositions that do not lend themselves to testable proof or disproof. This is one of the primary reasons I think it completely unjustified to make major changes in anything based on what is allegedly "known" at this time.
Global Warming News
- Thread starter KB9UDE
- Start date
- Views: 107770
- Status
Loren49
Veteran Member
LTMC- If any action is delayed until all data is "testable to prove or disprove" it is clear that nothing will ever be done. It's tough to replicate the earth a couple times so we can have a proper scientific experiment. Also ice core studies taken from various locations on earth is not comparable to a localized weather event as to its value.
Conservative use of fossil fuels and reduction of our demand for foreign energy is a winner in any case. The evidence that CO2 concentrations are increasing rapidly is clear and with the billions of tons per year from fossil fuels man burns we may have something to do with it.
The path we should take is not black or white but we can't wait until we know the problem with 100% certainty. The damage would then be done and possibly would not be reversible. It's considerably easier to find flaws with years of data and reports than it is to do that science.
Loren
Conservative use of fossil fuels and reduction of our demand for foreign energy is a winner in any case. The evidence that CO2 concentrations are increasing rapidly is clear and with the billions of tons per year from fossil fuels man burns we may have something to do with it.
The path we should take is not black or white but we can't wait until we know the problem with 100% certainty. The damage would then be done and possibly would not be reversible. It's considerably easier to find flaws with years of data and reports than it is to do that science.
Loren
This discussion is beginning to remind me of the following story. Names have been changed to protect the innocent, moral of the story is for individual use only, YMMV, no nutrition or health claims are made for this little parable.
At his family's insistence, a man is seeing a psychiatrist because the man insists to his family that he is dead (and thus refuses to participate in family life any more). After weeks of seeing the man and trying various forms of reality therapy and rational approaches, the psychiatrist comes up with a plan for his next session. As the session begins he asks the man to follow a rational line of thinking with him, and the man agrees. It goes something like this: So if you're dead, your organs have stopped functioning correct? The man thinks briefly, and says, yep, that would make sense. So if you're dead, then your heart isn't pumping blood any longer, correct? The man thinks briefly, and says, yep, that would make sense too. So it would then follow that dead men don't bleed, correct? The man considers this briefly, and says, yep, that too sounds right doc....so where are we going with this? At that point the psychiatrist leaps toward the man, quickly and deftly sticking him in the forearm with a needle (duly sterilized I am sure). As the puncture begins to bleed, the psychiatrist, with great satisfaction, says "There. That settles it, doesn't it?" The man responds "Well doc, I reckon you're right. It really does settle it. Dead men DO bleed after all." The end. And the end of my posting on this thread. Even those posts that sound "moderate" still want us to act on the basis of suppositions....non-provable suppositions...and that just isn't science in my world. It's a belief system. But......no hard feelings.
At his family's insistence, a man is seeing a psychiatrist because the man insists to his family that he is dead (and thus refuses to participate in family life any more). After weeks of seeing the man and trying various forms of reality therapy and rational approaches, the psychiatrist comes up with a plan for his next session. As the session begins he asks the man to follow a rational line of thinking with him, and the man agrees. It goes something like this: So if you're dead, your organs have stopped functioning correct? The man thinks briefly, and says, yep, that would make sense. So if you're dead, then your heart isn't pumping blood any longer, correct? The man thinks briefly, and says, yep, that would make sense too. So it would then follow that dead men don't bleed, correct? The man considers this briefly, and says, yep, that too sounds right doc....so where are we going with this? At that point the psychiatrist leaps toward the man, quickly and deftly sticking him in the forearm with a needle (duly sterilized I am sure). As the puncture begins to bleed, the psychiatrist, with great satisfaction, says "There. That settles it, doesn't it?" The man responds "Well doc, I reckon you're right. It really does settle it. Dead men DO bleed after all." The end. And the end of my posting on this thread. Even those posts that sound "moderate" still want us to act on the basis of suppositions....non-provable suppositions...and that just isn't science in my world. It's a belief system. But......no hard feelings.
Pilot
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2004
- Messages
- 1,224
- Location
- Oregon
- Tractor
- JD 770, Yanmar 180D, JD 420 (not running), had a Kubota B6200
Yes, yes, weather is not climate! Except when we have a heat wave and high temp records are broken, the media and the global warming "scientists"--more accurately called "advocates"-- attribute it to global warming. But if it's cold, it's irrelevant.
There is so much fraud, bad data, poor research, bad assumptions in the IPCC reports that the whole field of climate science is tainted. All the IPCC reports should be tossed and the process started all over again with an emphasis of integrity in the process.
And the "precautionary principal" that says we should take radical action to stop global warming in case they are right is just nonsense. All the action proposed is projected to reduce global warming by only 1/2 of one degree by the year 2100 at a huge cost to the economies of the world and the diversion of resources that could be used to reduce starvation, teach 3rd world kids to read and alleviate many problems in the world that we know how to solve. If the problem is so serious, we need to consider geoengineering, which can be done almost immediately at a much lower cost, although there are worldwide political implications.
I have no problem with trying to reduce all pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant, in spite of the EPA--CO2 levels have been much higher in the past with no harmful effects noted and no warming) using technology that is appropriate for the seriousness of the problem. I have no problem with alternative energy where it is competitive or even nearly competitive with conventional sources, especially if there are other positive benefits. But to disrupt the economy at huge expense for a problem that might happen, that might be offset a little bit at that huge expense makes no sense.
FWIW, I used to believe in the global warming idea until I ran across a critique of Gore's movie. Then I started looking into the matter with an open mind, at least at first, but the more I looked, the more I became convinced were were being had. I do have a science background. I don't classify myself as a denier, because neither I nor anyone else really knows what is happening, but I do call myself skeptic.
There is so much fraud, bad data, poor research, bad assumptions in the IPCC reports that the whole field of climate science is tainted. All the IPCC reports should be tossed and the process started all over again with an emphasis of integrity in the process.
And the "precautionary principal" that says we should take radical action to stop global warming in case they are right is just nonsense. All the action proposed is projected to reduce global warming by only 1/2 of one degree by the year 2100 at a huge cost to the economies of the world and the diversion of resources that could be used to reduce starvation, teach 3rd world kids to read and alleviate many problems in the world that we know how to solve. If the problem is so serious, we need to consider geoengineering, which can be done almost immediately at a much lower cost, although there are worldwide political implications.
I have no problem with trying to reduce all pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant, in spite of the EPA--CO2 levels have been much higher in the past with no harmful effects noted and no warming) using technology that is appropriate for the seriousness of the problem. I have no problem with alternative energy where it is competitive or even nearly competitive with conventional sources, especially if there are other positive benefits. But to disrupt the economy at huge expense for a problem that might happen, that might be offset a little bit at that huge expense makes no sense.
FWIW, I used to believe in the global warming idea until I ran across a critique of Gore's movie. Then I started looking into the matter with an open mind, at least at first, but the more I looked, the more I became convinced were were being had. I do have a science background. I don't classify myself as a denier, because neither I nor anyone else really knows what is happening, but I do call myself skeptic.
dave1949
Super Star Member
Here is my Global Warming prediction:
'100 Delicious Ways To Prepare Crow - for Dummies' will be at the top of the bestseller list for 20 weeks in the year 2050.
Dave.
'100 Delicious Ways To Prepare Crow - for Dummies' will be at the top of the bestseller list for 20 weeks in the year 2050.
Dave.
czechsonofagun
Elite Member
Global warming is a religion. It has all the typical signs. Ergo you can not argue with religion. You either believe it or not. For me I think it's stupid move and a political vehicle for sore loserman.
In the long run it will damage environmental responsible behavior - which is what really counts. For GB I have no words, the temperatures are influenced by sun activity much more than by the men activities. Seems like every democrap sees it his duty to be a pro GB too. Just bunch of propaganda if you ax me, seen it many times in old days.
i
In the long run it will damage environmental responsible behavior - which is what really counts. For GB I have no words, the temperatures are influenced by sun activity much more than by the men activities. Seems like every democrap sees it his duty to be a pro GB too. Just bunch of propaganda if you ax me, seen it many times in old days.
i
keegs
Veteran Member
Apparently News Corp has been taking advantage of the local weather to whip up its bottom line again...
mostly_gas
Super Member
Ever try driving or tractoring blindfolded? Without some idea how the climate really works how would you know anything about how effective the changes are that you are trying? Few if any of the alarmist predictions given during the last 30 years have come true. The earth has been colder and probably warmer. Most people realize that earth's normal activities dwarf man's contributions to the environment. The dire predictions are based nothing remotely resembling science. Some research on how the climate works would be nice.
EddieWalker
Epic Contributor
Whether you believe in man made global warming, or the new term, climate change, the question that underlies all of it is what temperature do we want to make the constant, average temperature of the planet?
If we are to assume that with new laws, more taxes and a change in how we use the planets resources, will result in a cooler temperature for the planet, how much cooler do we want to make it?
If climate change is real, and if we can affect the planets temperature, why would we want to make the planet cooler? In what way is a cooler planet better then a warmer one? Why is a few degrees colder better then a few degrees warmer?
To most of us, this is rediculous, but for those who actually believe that the planet is warming, and it's because of human activity, what period in our planets history had the best temperature? Was it when Greenland was farmed? Wine Grapes grew in Great Britain, or was it when the glaciers were growing and the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia was open?
If you can say what the best temperature is, and explain why, I'd sure apreciate it. Right now, I think the planet would be better off if it was about five degrees warmer. We'd have more farmland, more growing days, less energy needed to warm homes and more rain water because of more evaporation.
Eddie
If we are to assume that with new laws, more taxes and a change in how we use the planets resources, will result in a cooler temperature for the planet, how much cooler do we want to make it?
If climate change is real, and if we can affect the planets temperature, why would we want to make the planet cooler? In what way is a cooler planet better then a warmer one? Why is a few degrees colder better then a few degrees warmer?
To most of us, this is rediculous, but for those who actually believe that the planet is warming, and it's because of human activity, what period in our planets history had the best temperature? Was it when Greenland was farmed? Wine Grapes grew in Great Britain, or was it when the glaciers were growing and the land bridge between Alaska and Siberia was open?
If you can say what the best temperature is, and explain why, I'd sure apreciate it. Right now, I think the planet would be better off if it was about five degrees warmer. We'd have more farmland, more growing days, less energy needed to warm homes and more rain water because of more evaporation.
Eddie
keegs
Veteran Member
Eddie, If you're interested in the impacts from climate change, why not look it up?
- Status