Global Warming?

[turnkey4099]

Not to worry, the way we are going Ma Nature will take care of the problem.

Mankind meets the definition of a parasite - all take,no give.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

You GW (Global warming) guys have to calm down, pour yourself a glass of wine or soda or something. Stop trying to make believe you can control the climate, Stop panicking that you're losing control of the earth (like you ever could control it). Stop trying to drag down the rest of us to some former century or worse. If our homemade co2 is causing some tragic reaction some 200 or so years from now then man will evolve just like every other creature has evolved since day one. Either become extinct or become stronger. That's just the way it is. Worry more about today's problems that are real without speculation and ad-lib bull. Like figure out the cure for cancer, paying down the debt. Getting a good job, Buying some new toys. Or here's a dream finding oil in your back yard when you were doing some backhoe work, crude black co2 polluting oil, Texas tea yeah that will change your feeling on GW real fast:thumbsup:.

The earth will be fine without you liberals trying to raise the cost of living for the rest of us while you're on your current freak out cause. You got Obama elected be happy. Today global warming, tomorrow global cooling. You liberals always need some major cause to get behind or you just don't feel right you want the need to feel powerful, wanted , needed etc. Take care of things you can control for real not make believe you have the power to change or stop the global climate change., WOW just saying that sounds so damm silly (change the climate of the great and powerful earth) - how silly is that? We are only here for 100 years at a time. Grab it, use it, live it, squeeze the living s*** out of it ... then die like everybody else did. That's hows it's done.

The rest of the people on TBN on all the other threads are all happy go lucky tractor owners talking about tilling fields and oil leaks. You global guys are all panicking trying convince the rest of us we have to save the world from your made up doom and life is moving on without you. I'm what you GW would call a stupid denier and proud of it. Live and let die (On another note, did you guys see the New Kubota line up for 2013?) posted all in good fun relax. Happy Thanksgiving oops can I say that to you guys?

So your solution to our poluting the planet is to stick your head in the sand.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

That was caused by and corrected by people.

Yep, it required a total re-do on how to farm in that region.

Harry K

 

[mistermcgoo]

So your solution to our poluting the planet is to stick your head in the sand.

Harry K

What is your life expectancy today compared to your ancestors say 100 years ago? Only in poor countries where they don't have cheap abundant energy is it a dirty, polluted disease infested environment.

The air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat are orders of magnitude better today than at any time in human history; all due to what some call "polluting the planet".

 

[IslandTractor]

All data is at some point rewritten and posted BY A HUMAN. That HUMAN may or may not have an agenda. So that in itself makes science not trust worthy. Takes nothing to change a 1 to a 2 or a 10 to a 100, to get results THAT HUMAN wants. If a HUMAN forces a certain number that HUMAN may get a grant to keep working for another 20 years. If the number is wrong he loses his job. What would you do. Put down one number and lose your job or put down another number and keep your job for 20 years.

Don't BS me every one of us would fudge a number to keep a job for 20 years.

Your quaint notion of how data is collected in big experiments shows your last contact with science was probably in the third grade. Data of the type used in these weather studies is collected by computers and there are almost always sophisticated systems to audit data in major studies. Scientific fraud does occur but is usually detected by collaborators or competitors. That is one reason that virtually all experiments or observations are repeated in separate laboratories. Your notion that anyone would fudge data to keep their job tells us more about you than science. You had better hope drug companies are watched closely enough by the FDA to make such data fudging near impossible (they are).

You are proving my point nicely. A basic lack of understanding of the scientific method and process is a characteristic of the politically motivated denier community.

 

[IslandTractor]

What is your life expectancy today compared to your ancestors say 100 years ago? Only in poor countries where they don't have cheap abundant energy is it a dirty, polluted disease infested environment.

The air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat are orders of magnitude better today than at any time in human history; all due to what some call "polluting the planet".

Water yes is safer microbiologically when treated. Food supply is mostly safer too, but air, not so much compared to pre industrial era. Most of those improvements in living conditions were maxed out by 1950 or so. And, for all you dittoheads, they are improved mostly due to government REGULATION. Think FDA, EPA and your local health dept.

 

[2LaneCruzer]

Methinks they are putting more than just sugar in the al gore kool-aid these days....:laughing:



BTW...most of the climate science research is being done with programs and algorithms coded by computer scientists...it will be many decades or longer before they have enough data to make any definitive conclusions...

Anyone that thinks working in an actual research lab makes one iota of a difference (in re: ) is misinformed, misguided and delusional...they believe and worship the alchemists of climate.[/QUOTE]

That had to be an off the cuff remark, made in haste without much aforethought. You seem to equate research scientists with the mentality of an unthinking, mindless AGW cultist. I can testify that is not the case; if it were, where did the skeptic scientists come from? Just because you work or have worked in a research lab does not automatically place you in any particular category...in fact, it gives you a basis to question. If you've ever run even a simple scientific experiment and tried to reproduce it, you should know that you don't always get the same exact results, particularly when biological systems are involved...in my mind, climate science is analagous to a biological system in the sense that it is huge, very complex, and an unobserved or unknown factor can have a significant effect.

Now, having said that, I can also tell you that scientists are human beings with the same frailties and emotions as any one else...sometimes these emotions and frailties are exaggerated by their egos and personal problems and they can even be irrational at times...and yes, some scientists may sacrifice their principles for recognition and/or money. As they say, politics makes strange bedfellows.

 

[mistermcgoo]

Your quaint notion of how data is collected in big experiments shows your last contact with science was probably in the third grade. Data of the type used in these weather studies is collected by computers and there are almost always sophisticated systems to audit data in major studies. Scientific fraud does occur but is usually detected by collaborators or competitors. That is one reason that virtually all experiments or observations are repeated in separate laboratories. Your notion that anyone would fudge data to keep their job tells us more about you than science. You had better hope drug companies are watched closely enough by the FDA to make such data fudging near impossible (they are).

You are proving my point nicely. A basic lack of understanding of the scientific method and process is a characteristic of the politically motivated denier community.

Ah, no. The data is fed to computers by humans. Further, computers do only what they are programmed to do.....by humans.

Climate models are a hypothesis, yet some treat them as an experiment. A hypothesis cannot test a hypothesis. Think about it.

 

[mistermcgoo]

Water yes is safer microbiologically when treated. Food supply is mostly safer too, but air, not so much compared to pre industrial era. Most of those improvements in living conditions were maxed out by 1950 or so. And, for all you dittoheads, they are improved mostly due to government REGULATION. Think FDA, EPA and your local health dept.

Not really. It was wealth produced by capitalism that allowed us to improve our lives. The Soviet Union, China, Cuba.....the list is long, all are heavily regulated yet, are bastions of poverty, pollution and poor living conditions.

The FDA and EPA are corrupt as any mafia organization.

CO2 is not a pollutant even if 5 lawyers in black suits call it such.

 

[TCJatko]

Things you won't see on the Weather Channel.

1) There hasn't been one landfall hurricane in the U.S. in over 7 years; a "record".

2) There is no evidence of increasing intensity or frequency of hurricanes. As satellites have only been available for roughly 50 years, it is not surprising every Tiny Tim storm is recorded where nobody would otherwise have witnessed it. Sandy was not even a hurricane and not a "mega-storm". It occurred during high tide and full moon. One would have to believe CO2 is an intelligent being and planned accordingly and it wouldn't be shocking if some do. In 1954-1955 there were 6 (six) hurricanes that hit the East coast; 5 were H3, one H4. Sandy wasn't even H1. Don't take my word for it, the link below is a NOAA map which even they can't erase from history. With a cold PDO and still warm AMO, hurricanes will become more frequent as they were in the 1950's. It's a cycle folks, yet some think history began in 1979.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/images/tracks/majors_1951_1960.jpg

Despite what some may believe, the storm track Sandy was on has not warmed in 70 years. After Sandy however, the region cooled tremendously.

3) Tornadoes are not getting worse; quite the opposite. Nine of the ten deadliest tornadoes occurred before 1960 when CO2 was at "safe" levels (whatever that means). Again, satellites detect the smallest of storms so there is no way to compare directly every period of classifed tornado count for the last 100 years. However, the more severe tornadoes were recorded more accurately. Don't take my word for it. Here is NOAA data on that as well. No way they can doctor that either. Question: if there's a tornado in the woods and nobody is there to witness it, will the wind still blow? 2012 is nothing special.
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

4) The Antarctic is not melting away as was predicted; ice extent has been increasing as well as mass. Temperatures are not increasing either. Of course after the fact climate "scientists" claim that's what they predicted all along.

5) The Arctic melted more than what was predicted, so they can't even get that right and cannot explain it either other than repeating the same "mandunit" mantra. However, wind and ocean currents are a larger contributor to ice loss than temperature. This happened in both 2007 and 2012 and as the AMO returns to its cold phase as the PDO has (see current Bering Sea ice), the Eastern Arctic ice retreat will reverse just as it always has. Greenland is still no warmer than it was in the 1930's.

All of the above is easily verifiable.

So what was predicted in 1988 that got everyone's panties in a bind? Note the picture of the super heated Antarctic which was supposed to warm faster and more than the Arctic. Remember, the "greenhouse effect" is supposed to warm most at the poles (plural).
pg. 54 Popular Science - Google Books That article and James Hansen Congressional testimony the same year is what hooked me for several years. It is a load of garbage.

Someone mentioned glaciers are melting at an "unprecedented rate". Sorry, but the vast majority of glacier melt occurred before 1960. Less honest people (scientists are people too) often fail to point out that fact. Many glaciers are now growing; that is rarely reported either. Alaska was for several years the 'canary in the coal mine' poster child for AGW, but they don't talk about Alaska these days. Why? Because the PDO flipped negative and just as The Great Climate Shift occurred in ~1975 to the warm phase, now it is returning to 20-30 years of cold. Oh darn, another AGW fail.

I did not pollute the thread with multiple graphs and pictures. If some demand such evidence with links to the data source, I'm happy to oblige.

Excellent points, all. This same crowd now hyping the "global warming", oops, "climate change", was the same bunch predicting a new ice age in the seventies. Challenge their religion,which is really worship of all things government, and prepare to be vilified.