Global Warming?

[patrick_g]

You know what that's fine. I think you should pay for it though. Oil companies are in the oil business, why should they do the research?

Actually they refer to themselves as energy companies in the energy business and oil is ONE FORM of energy in which they are interested. BP is big in solar cellc and on and on and on...

Pat

 

[Tollster]

You know what that's fine. I think you should pay for it though. Oil companies are in the oil business, why should they do the research? Let the people who want this stuff pay for the research. Let the New York Times develop wind and solar, or maybe ABC. We saw a bunch of I am smarter than you types from the Santa Clara Valley (silicon valley) try to develop an electric car, what a mess. If the battery is drained it destroys the battery forever, called bricking the car. Oh, it's 40K to replace. You turn it into a big brick. Not necessary or even preferable or even desirable to switch to something else, not necessary, oil is plentiful, clean, safe, and cheap.
HS

Why on earth would an oil company want to do any research on an alternative if its everything you claim it to be

 

[rsewill]

One big problem with the science of climate change is that it is under constant attack using half truths or outright falsehoods by the 91% of talk radio that is conservative. Why these talkers are in lockstep on climate change is beyond me.

 

[houstonscott]

One big problem with the science of climate change is that it is under constant attack using half truths or outright falsehoods by the 91% of talk radio that is conservative. Why these talkers are in lockstep on climate change is beyond me.

There is no science to climate change, only an observation by people alive today, anyone can do that!

HS

 

[houstonscott]

Why on earth would an oil company want to do any research on an alternative if its everything you claim it to be

It is something they do to placate people like you while they sell oil. The energy science has already been settled, and it is oil.

HS

 

[tallyho8]

Earliest Horses Show Past Global Warming Affected Body Size of Mammals

Earliest horses show past global warming affected body size of mammals

This is great news. I believe that human overpopulation is the largest problem that we have on earth and if this theory is correct, that global warming will result in humans being only 3 feet tall, then this will cut our overpopulation problem in half.

Mayans put out of business by modest decrease in rainfall.
Classic Maya Civilization collapse related to modest rainfall reductions, research suggests

Since this happened 1000 years ago, doesn't it prove that it was not caused by man made global warming and that climate change is a natural cycle?

Urban deforestation.
U.S. urban forests losing groundPat

I do agree that deforestation is a problem and can contribute to earth's problems. I wish we could preserve more of the earths forests, rainforests and trees in urban and suburban areas. Maybe we should spend the money planting trees instead of wasting it on so many grants to politically connected do-nothing companies under the guise of green energy research.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Who has the hidden agenda? The oil company that is selling you fuel for a profit and having to get it half way across the planet in locations that hate the US?

Or a government that relies on tax money raised from selling that fuel, but even more from voters who donate to them so they will fight the oil company with an empty promise to force somebody to invent something better. In the mean time, to keep their supporters happy and giving them more money, they use tax dollars to promote industy that doesn't work and requires more energy to operate then it produces. Have you heard of ethynol? What about solar companies like Sylendra? Or the Chevy Volt?Eddie

Regardless of failures, do you realize that sunlight delivers 1100 watts per square meter ... ~1.5 MegaWatts per acre? We can harvest about 10% of that -- 150KW. Thats 600KW-hrs just from the 4hrs of high sun on a single sunny day. My entire farm uses about 150 KW-Hrs per day in peak season. ... So, regardless of failures, the conservative [efficiencies are rising due technology] potential is huge, and the benefit awaits application of credible known science. Change is almost always initially expensive. Even so, proactive change will ultimately turn out to be cheap in comparison to reactive change. Well directed subsidies are the best bet to get this going. The bad ones will fall out. Solar isnt one of them.
...larry

 

[mostly_gas]

One big problem with the science of climate change is that it is under constant attack using half truths or outright falsehoods by the 91% of talk radio that is conservative. Why these talkers are in lockstep on climate change is beyond me.

I am waiting for something other than the 1/2 truths the alarmists are tring to pass off as science.

 

[patrick_g]

I do agree that deforestation is a problem and can contribute to earth's problems. I wish we could preserve more of the earths forests, rainforests and trees in urban and suburban areas. Maybe we should spend the money planting trees instead of wasting it on so many grants to politically connected do-nothing companies under the guise of green energy research.

Of course the Mayan thing was not caused by human induced climate change but you missed the 600 lb gorilla in the room.

If man caused climate change should happen to cause a similar rainfall change then similar disaster would follow. Think of it as an example of what we could trigger, not a bragging point because it wasn't caused by man.

When volcanoes erupt violently bad things happen. If there were a human activity capable of triggering a volcanic eruption we should be careful regarding that activity.

Pat

 

[turnkey4099]

There is no science to climate change, only an observation by people alive today, anyone can do that!

HS

So you just ignore all th weather records kept in the past 300 years? The ice core evidence that goes back over 100,000 years?

Your claim of no science is false.

Harry K

 

[patrick_g]

There is no science to climate change, only an observation by people alive today, anyone can do that!

HS

I need a little more detail. Are you saying science is only valid if the folks doing it are dead? Let me rephrase that... Reporting information is only valid science if the reporter is now deceased?

Contemporary scientists might have access to ancient information through ice bores in old glaciers or core samples from the ocean bottom or terrestrial locations. Are you saying that is science or not? Anyone can do what? Report climate change? Yes, just anyone can report anything but if their credentials and track record are not appropriate then careful campers will discount their validity.

Unfortunately there is great confusion regarding climate change and whether or not a significant contribution is from human activity. There are well intentioned but poorly informed vocal proponents on the fringes of both sides of the issue and every imaginable intermediate position. There are alarmists of every ilk as well as those wrapped deeply in their protective cocoons of denial. Claims, counterclaims, instances of the application of the golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules) and buys results convenient for the purchaser.

I am not typically a conspiracy theorist but one possibility is that some unknown group or group of groups (or de facto conspirators with similar goals) with an interest in maintaining the status quo could fund this confusion. Hire some sci-****** to find bogus answers and thereby discredit science in the eyes of the laity. Muddy the waters so thoroughly that there is no clear mandate to take any action. You could get a lot of bang for your buck by confusing the least scientifically trained among us and essentially enlisting them in an army of Babel to shout down any opposition.

If I had great wealth or power at stake on the possibility of someone showing climate change to be definitely happening for the worst and man being a large part of the impetus for change I would want to happen EXACTLY what is happening. Even with no conclusive evidence, if enough were at stake regarding wealth and power I'd not want to run any reasonable risk of having it revealed that man influences climate detrimentally, even a little.

I make no claim that there is a cabal of conspirators behind all this confusion or that anyone of any particular persuasion is a dupe for the bad guys BUT... if I wanted to defuse a situation that stood a chance of disturbing my position of power or wealth I'd be thrilled to see what is happening to be happening.

Pat

 

[houstonscott]

I need a little more detail. Are you saying science is only valid if the folks doing it are dead? Let me rephrase that... Reporting information is only valid science if the reporter is now deceased?

Contemporary scientists might have access to ancient information through ice bores in old glaciers or core samples from the ocean bottom or terrestrial locations. Are you saying that is science or not? Anyone can do what? Report climate change? Yes, just anyone can report anything but if their credentials and track record are not appropriate then careful campers will discount their validity.

Unfortunately there is great confusion regarding climate change and whether or not a significant contribution is from human activity. There are well intentioned but poorly informed vocal proponents on the fringes of both sides of the issue and every imaginable intermediate position. There are alarmists of every ilk as well as those wrapped deeply in their protective cocoons of denial. Claims, counterclaims, instances of the application of the golden rule (who has the gold makes the rules) and buys results convenient for the purchaser.

I am not typically a conspiracy theorist but one possibility is that some unknown group or group of groups (or de facto conspirators with similar goals) with an interest in maintaining the status quo could fund this confusion. Hire some sci-****** to find bogus answers and thereby discredit science in the eyes of the laity. Muddy the waters so thoroughly that there is no clear mandate to take any action. You could get a lot of bang for your buck by confusing the least scientifically trained among us and essentially enlisting them in an army of Babel to shout down any opposition.

If I had great wealth or power at stake on the possibility of someone showing climate change to be definitely happening for the worst and man being a large part of the impetus for change I would want to happen EXACTLY what is happening. Even with no conclusive evidence, if enough were at stake regarding wealth and power I'd not want to run any reasonable risk of having it revealed that man influences climate detrimentally, even a little.

I make no claim that there is a cabal of conspirators behind all this confusion or that anyone of any particular persuasion is a dupe for the bad guys BUT... if I wanted to defuse a situation that stood a chance of disturbing my position of power or wealth I'd be thrilled to see what is happening to be happening.

Pat

Anyone can observe that there has been global climate change, don't need a scientist to tell me that, if you think someone has taken observations and can prove with those a scientific certainty that the earth is warming now is somehow different, is a lier, can't be done. The ice and glaciers of north america has been melting for 14 thousand years no news there, sorry. California was under 10000ft of ice just 10 thousand years ago, you bet it warmer now than it was then, no science to that, just an observation. So where is the science? Is it going to get cold again, sure is, lots of observations that the cold and warm ebb and flood. No science there either, just an observation. Now what science are you talking about, that proves what?

HS

 

[patrick_g]

Anyone can observe that there has been global climate change, don't need a scientist to tell me that,

Well, right here in River City (This thread) there are folks who argue there is no climate change only random changes not unlike those that have gone before or variations in weather from year to year.

Some deny that it is possible for man to alter the environment through his activities, not that he has but that he could!

Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?

Consider the argument of the beard: If I have one long hair on my chin is it a beard? How about 2? How about 3? At some point most reasonable people would agree it is a beard. Apply this reasoning to climate change and climate change caused by human activities.

Can anyone show proof that the climate never changes, not even a little bit?

Can anyone prove that human activity is incapable of changing the climate, even a little bit?

Murphy stated that whatever could go wrong usually does and at the worst possible moment. If we don't know whether or not man could have a deleterious effect on climate it would be better to err on the side of caution and check it out rather than assume everything will be OK. Is the ice on the lake strong enough to safely hold a car? Should we guess or groundlessly assume it will be OK because it was this date last year or make a couple test holes to see the thickness and be guided by the measured facts (sounds like scientific method vs baseless faith, right?)

What should reasonably be on the table for discussion is NOT idle conjecture, wishful thinking, or faith based denial but instead whether or not man could cause change and how much change is man causing, is it a problem, could it become a problem, can we do something to make it better, how to identify what if anything could/should be done. These are worthy items for serious scrutiny.

Pat

 

[crash325]

I'm a firm believer in global warming. And I like it.
Doing all I can to help it along. :laughing::thumbsup::laughing:

 

[Tollster]

 

[patrick_g]

Well harumph!!! What has reasoned sensibility and expected human behavior got to do with this. Don't stand out from the crowd, just wait till someone says something against your personal convictions and then make big claims or cute remarks to put those miscreants in their place.

Maybe better you like how you have to prove a negative to refute some positions.

What I want to know is when those guys stopped beating their wives and barking at the moon.

Pat Oh, by the way... nice chart!

 

[Pixguy]

Who has the hidden agenda? The oil company that is selling you fuel for a profit and having to get it half way across the planet in locations that hate the US?

Or a government that relies on tax money raised from selling that fuel, but even more from voters who donate to them so they will fight the oil company with an empty promise to force somebody to invent something better. In the mean time, to keep their supporters happy and giving them more money, they use tax dollars to promote industy that doesn't work and requires more energy to operate then it produces. Have you heard of ethynol? What about solar companies like Sylendra? Or the Chevy Volt?

If you want to find a hidden agenda, look at goverment policy on energy and explain why the pipeline was canceled, why the Gulf was closed down, why ANWR was cancelled, why no more refineries are being built, why no more Nuclear power plants have been built, why Obama threatened to shut down coal and why we are spending billions of tax payer dollars to develop other countries oil industry like Brazil.

Eddie

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[houstonscott]

Well, right here in River City (This thread) there are folks who argue there is no climate change only random changes not unlike those that have gone before or variations in weather from year to year.

Some deny that it is possible for man to alter the environment through his activities, not that he has but that he could!

Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?

Consider the argument of the beard: If I have one long hair on my chin is it a beard? How about 2? How about 3? At some point most reasonable people would agree it is a beard. Apply this reasoning to climate change and climate change caused by human activities.

Can anyone show proof that the climate never changes, not even a little bit?

Can anyone prove that human activity is incapable of changing the climate, even a little bit?

Murphy stated that whatever could go wrong usually does and at the worst possible moment. If we don't know whether or not man could have a deleterious effect on climate it would be better to err on the side of caution and check it out rather than assume everything will be OK. Is the ice on the lake strong enough to safely hold a car? Should we guess or groundlessly assume it will be OK because it was this date last year or make a couple test holes to see the thickness and be guided by the measured facts (sounds like scientific method vs baseless faith, right?)

What should reasonably be on the table for discussion is NOT idle conjecture, wishful thinking, or faith based denial but instead whether or not man could cause change and how much change is man causing, is it a problem, could it become a problem, can we do something to make it better, how to identify what if anything could/should be done. These are worthy items for serious scrutiny.

Pat

Lets play out your train of thought here and maybe you will understand where I am coming from.

Observation, the tides come in and go out. They must be effected by man somehow, lets find out how!

Observation, the earth goes around the sun, mans activities must effect that too, lets find out how!

Observation the earth heats and cools, mans activities must effect that, lets find out how!

It's stupid, a hoax. Get it...

HS

 

[Dadof3]

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

"Wouldn't a prudent person want to know what is going on and what if anything should be done about it and what if anything could be done about it?"

These "prudent people" have two goals. To line their pockets and cut America down to size.Why else would the push for Cap and Trade in the US when China and India will never participate?

 

[Tollster]

The White House rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline. But that hasn't stopped TransCanada from suing American landowners and seizing their land to try and start construction. Tell TransCanada to stop this astonishing action against Americans' property

Tell TransCanada: Stop seizing land for the rejected Keystone XL pipeline!