Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 25 2016, 09:44 PM

many people believe man is contributing to the point of killing the planet, ( I don't) , But do you listen to the propaganda , or have you ever looked into it for yourself , seen were the real money (your tax dollars ) really gets filtered to, Scientists can just as easily be bought as anyone else.
but Kris lets us talk, lets keep it civil for that

Posted by: fzalfa Mar 26 2016, 11:15 AM

The Global warming alert have never more interrest scientist and student because they can earn money since some year with this topic.

Before no one have any interrest about climatology because people's in dont get any money, now everyone want to publish a theory or a survey...... pathetic.

in other case , some people have predic a global frost some years ago, and it was the most believed scenario since these last years !

the global warming is a truth, but the humans activities aren"t fully responsible, only some light percents, the whole part is about solar activities.....

Laurent

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 26 2016, 02:33 PM

Anybody with even a passing familiarity with Cook's study would see this Molyneux guy the video is full of shit. He completely misrepresents how the study was performed and how the numbers were computed. His preposterous position that climate change must be explicitly stated in an abstract to be anthropogenic or otherwise the author doesn't agree with the consensus opinion is hilarious. By that logic, the observation that scientific papers rarely state: "the earth is round" would mean most scientists believe the earth is flat . Further, he ignores the second method in the study where, instead of parsing the papers, they consulted the authors.

This quote from the consensus project is a good summary:

Probably the more interesting topic is why so many people deny manmade climate change. Here's some reading on that:
https://www.opendemocracy.net/conspiracy/suspect-science/joseph-e-uscinski/why-do-people-reject-climate-change

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 26 2016, 04:38 PM

I will tell you why, not have some guy in the above study tell you why he thinks I don't believe man might contribute (but so little it is of insignificance)
first that story starts with them describing these models , but these models can't even accurately predict warming as compared with balloons that are actually taking temperatures , and when your whole ideology starts with something that does not make sense to me , it nullifies all the conclusions http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=222
I am a carpenter , if I told you i built your house with no foundation to save money , you would run out of it , in the same , I have to run from a study whose foundation i believe is faulty
second.Consensus is not science , and the fact that even three percent disagrees leads me to be skeptic , even more so the first law of thermal dynamics says you can't get something from nothing yet science breaks this first law for their model of the big bang , again leading to my skepticism

I am a slow typer so this is taking forever , so to cut it short . As i have gotten older , I have been slow to coming to a steadfast conclusion , as from experience I have seen so many things change( during my stay ) that mankind has argued as fact . Al gore said (20 years ago) we would be flooding Islands by now , katrina like storms would happen more often, in the eighties the earth was starting to freeze and look , all of this has changed,
here is some food for thought . I hate the term christian scientist as well as atheist scientist, to me , both these ( by definition have to make their evidence fit their world view ) and if you have to make evidence fit your world view (which has nothing to do with science)is that really science. I believe the best scientist should be skeptical of everything and be willing to be lead where the evidence takes them and be willing to change once new data has arrived .


but if you could answer one question for me , is it possible that we could get new information that shows everyone on both sides is wrong ?

Posted by: fzalfa Mar 26 2016, 05:32 PM

totaly agree !

Laurent

Posted by: fkalich Mar 26 2016, 08:27 PM

@Then pray tell, where are the increased levels of atmospheric CO2 coming from? We have not had unusually high volcanic activity over the past century that would explain it. So where is it coming from, if not from human activities?

#No, nobody with a brain said any of the things you are talking about, that was all just mass media entertainment spoon fed for popular consumption. The glaciers will be gone, and yes the coastal cities will have to be evacuated, but that will be later in the century. There is uncertainty as to how much world temperatures will rise, but they certainly will rise. That is as certain as putting ice out on a summer day, put more CO2 into the atmosphere, the hotter the planet will be. It is much like what happens in a car during the summer. Short wave radiation comes in, and is converted after reaching surfaces to longer wave radiation. In a car windows allow the short wave to pass, but restrict the long wave getting out. Green house gases do the same on earth. A proper level of course is necessary to sustain life. The higher levels we are causing will create an environment more reminiscence of other periods in Earth history, for example in the Dinosaur era where CO2 levels were much higher.

CO2 is not the only green house gas. Methane actually has 31 times the effect, but is not as long lasting. Methane will dissipate within a century or so from the atmosphere. There is a huge amount of methane frozen under the oceans, and under the tundra. As world temperatures rise it is starting to melt. But it won't all melt immediately, that will take a century or two. But it will melt, and increasingly become a major factor. These changes will occur gradually. But keep in mind that when we say average world temperatures will rise by an amount, this implies that they will rise a lot less than that above the oceans, and much more than that on land. There are models for what the effects will be, where the droughts will occur, where the torrential rains will become more prevalent. Probably more scary will be the effect on the oceans, and ocean currents. And the effect on critical species low in the food chain living in the oceans. But the changes will be gradual, not overnight. Some years will still be cool. In some years areas destined to be drought areas will get some rain. And in some years we won't have as many hurricanes. But over time the end result is somewhat predictable.

Actually the frozen methane could possibly be used as an a cleaner energy sources, if we could figure out how to get it out (before it melts as ocean and world temperatures rise due to global warming). There is much more frozen methane out there than there is natural gas.

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 26 2016, 10:07 PM

this not about methane , but co2 , i did not want your whole post
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 27 2016, 06:10 PM

It's good to have an opinion, but at the end of the day, scientific consensus is a rational basis for public policy. Unsubstantiated conspiracy theories are not .

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 29 2016, 02:08 AM

follow the billions of dollars people , that scientists get for feeding politicians who in turn feed them

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Lye5liWuZw&ebc=ANyPxKrvPnn45zMKCgVWDFHTZ6u3OZhj9sTqCCYQdCQYKea1V9CjVJ7qlQJfnwUGTOv35XMcX8Yj5f3c5iHekNCbtXHeq1iFsA

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 29 2016, 07:36 PM

Have gotten some very good chuckles and enjoyed the back and forth here That's what forums are for. Time will tell though right?

BTW here is a link to those "Hoaxers" at NASA talking about climate change just for reference They just want more money though, greedy buggers Also links many of the Scientific organizations studying climate change and whether it's caused by us and whether it's good or bad. You guys be the judge

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Posted by: yoncopin Mar 30 2016, 03:08 PM

This. /thread

Posted by: jstcrsn Mar 31 2016, 03:35 AM

most of these quotes were 2009 and earlier. Now don't get me wrong , man could cause issues , But I don't think it is as critical as we are led to believe . I mean the governments want to spend billions on green energy whilst right now look at the extent of starvation

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2016, 04:57 PM

This quote from the consensus project is a good summary:

"Climate contrarians everywhere protest there is no scientific consensus. If that were true, they should easily be able to show there is indeed a significant body of work that challenges mainstream science. Yet they haven’t and can’t, because a robust and coherent denial of man-made global warming does not exist.

Our study describes the state of expert opinion, it does not define scientific truth nor does it tell people what to think. Climate scientists today overwhelmingly endorse the consensus view that humans are the cause of most of recent global warming. That’s a fact."



Not so fast. This list of over 1350 peer reviewed papers that support skeptic's arguments was compiled in 2014 and there have been even more peer reviewed papers written since then that challenges the AGW hypothesis.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html#Preface

The fact is, there is no consensus. And even if there was , It wouldn't necessarily mean anything since the majority of scientists believing one thing have ended up being wrong on many occasions.

There are far too many problems with the hypothesis of AGW to warrant sweeping regulation and policy in my opinion. And when you have folks suggesting that deniers should be punished, which has been discussed with, and considered by the AG of the USA, and reported on in the media recently, well that should be a giant red flag right there, at least it is for me.

Posted by: Rammikin Mar 31 2016, 05:15 PM

That's why the consensus figure is 97% and not 100%. If there was no disagreement, that would be suspicious .

Posted by: Todd Simpson Mar 31 2016, 05:44 PM

It's good to have both sides on any argument/issue So thank goodness for Rich and CRSN. If everyone agreed with the majority, it would be boring. So we need folks to take the exact other side no matter what the evidence suggests. So keep on keeping on guys The world needs dissenters. It keeps the rest of us honest.

Personally, I"m with the 97 percent of scientific organizations, including the CDC and American Medical Association who say this is a man made problem. It's something we have done to ourselves and there will be a reckoning. For those with children, your children will grow up in a very different world. I have no kids so I can be a bit more nihilistic.

Posted by: AK Rich Mar 31 2016, 05:53 PM

Not sure that 97% figure is accurate. But even if it is. The vast majority of predictions made by these scientists have either turned out to be inaccurate or aren't panning out as predicted. They are having a hard enough time in even showing how the climate has warmed and will continue to warm using the much heralded models which do not accurately show the past, and which use arguably flawed ground based temperature data and other questionable data revisions or adjustments. Let alone the percentage of warming that mankind hypothetically contributes.

If you ask me if I thought the overall climate was warming, I would have to say that I really don't know. Here in Alaska where I live , it certainly appears that it is. But as to the extent that mankind contributes to this warming, it seems to me that the evidence is extremely flimsy that mankind has a significant impact. I think that policy's being considered and implemented to combat this are over reaching and quite possibly extremely dangerous to the lives and well being of many of the planets poor and undeveloped nations as well as the rest of us.

I also believe that it is the nature of governments to try and exert more and more control over the populace and have also shown time and time again that they will stretch, bend and alter the truth to achieve that goal.

Posted by: Fran Mar 31 2016, 07:27 PM

Seems like pretty scientific proof to me. And Im a science man.
Until I see such powerful proof on the contrary, I know who I believe.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 2 2016, 12:49 AM

I hear ya But like I was saying, it's really important to have dissenting voices on any issue. Without these, we just have a monologue, and not a dialogue. Dialogue is often a great way to get through to the heart of a given matter as it helps chip away various bits until we get to something closer to what is more or less true. So for those in dissent, keep dissenting

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 2 2016, 05:43 PM

This is part of the problem. The heavily exaggerated way that the AGW hypothesis is portrayed in the media and by political leaders.
There is no factual conclusion (Proof of AGW) whatsoever coming from the studies of the so called consensus, look it up. Even the authors and scientists that have taken part of the studies will tell you that if put on the spot.
20 years ago or more we were told the debate is over. Obviously, it is not.
The movement is taking the form of a religious belief.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 4 2016, 06:15 AM

More dissent!! Always welcome. I'm pretty swayed by the American Medical Association as they give it more of a medical problem analysis and such. But there is no hard fast proof that we even exist much less that the climate is changing because of us. So in the end, one must take what evidence one can find and make up ones own mind. Personally, I think we are going to see the oceans rise quite a bit and Florida sink. But like I said, time will tell

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 4 2016, 05:56 PM

Absolutely more dissent

1: Right, because the AMA are such experts on the climate and such. Anyway, the AMA is looking at possible medical probs etc based on a hypothetical reality, Right? There are studies that show how a warmer climate can be beneficial to mankind as well.

2: No proof we exist? Seriously? Or did you state that just for the sake of argument? Try using that as an argument in your defense if you ever get into trouble with the law. It could go like this: It wasn't me because I do not exist. And the prosecution has no standing because they don't exist either. And neither do you , your honor.

3: Sea level has not come close to the predicted rise made 20 years ago or longer. In fact, none of the predictions from then have come to pass to the level they were predicted. A good number of those predictions haven't happened at all.

Monkeys might fly out of my butt tomorrow but I am not going to plug it up today.

Love ya, Todd.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 4 2016, 07:53 PM

Yet more dissent Always welcome.
Here is a link to NASA talking about the hard data on sea level rise caused by climate change.
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Almost forgot! Here is the graphic from the nasa page and a spiff quote

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES
Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 4 2016, 08:21 PM

The next poster pointed out that these were back in 2009 so they must all be antiquated and wrong? Just kidding But yeah, if that page full of info doesn't do it, then it's not getting done. But like I said, if everyone agreed it would be boring so we need folks to take a contrarian view no matter how much of a stretch is may seem.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 4 2016, 08:48 PM

Reading this thread and the debate about the relationship between facts and truth makes me think of this awesome word :

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/63ite2/the-colbert-report-the-word---truthiness

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 5 2016, 02:50 AM

Not surprisingly, studies that try to show global warming is good for you are few and marginal, and what few studies there are, are primarily from sources like Happer in the video above, who was discredited in December as writing papers-for-hire for the oil industry.


I know it sounds funny, but Todd is correct. That's been an important topic for western philosophical thought for centuries. It can't be proven, but it is a predicate that serves as the basis for Cartesian based philosophy


Without knowing the details of your model, it's hard to say why your predictions have failed. On the other hand, climatologists have been rather successful at predicting rising sealevel trends, so there might something to learn by studying their models.

Posted by: fkalich Apr 5 2016, 07:20 PM

Take a look at the youtube site of the guy featured on this thread. Environmentalists are just one of their targets, the others are the typcial ones of the right wing.

Here is one. He states that low IQ people (Muslims immigrants) can't compete with the high IQ people of European ethnicity, and that is the source of the civil problems associated with immigration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flssY6CRfWM

In the case of that other video with Happer, he is a physicist, he is not even an environmental scientist. He worked in the George W. Bush administration. They have to look hard to find anyone who they can pass off as an "expert".

And regarding my mention of the massive amounts of frozen methane under the tundra and oceans, this is a thread with the title "Global Warming Hoax". I would think that all green house gasses are in play here, not just CO2.

The frozen methane is very significant, it may in the long run even be more significant than CO2 in this matter. The Permian–Triassic extinction event may have been caused by release of methane from clathrates (frozen methane). An estimated 52% of marine genus went extinct, representing 96% of all marine species.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 5 2016, 07:48 PM

Not sure how a paper funded by the oil industry should be disqualified. Shouldn't the paper be judged solely on it's content and reviewed just like the ones payed for by taxpayers. Maybe the gov funded studies should be disqualified as well by that logic. And when we have folks within the AGW community allegedly plotting to hide and manipulate data (East Anglia) well, that's a problem. Yes I know there was an internal investigation but I don't trust anyone to look into themselves for wrongdoing. If everyone could do that, no-one would ever be guilty of anything.

As far as the do we actually exist thing. I figured it was something like that. But to me it is just critical thinking gone off the deep end with no real purpose and a waste of time. What's the point? To me it just doesn't matter. Nor does it matter to anyone as far as I can tell. Except critical thinkers I guess.

As far as sea level rise goes, I think the claim of successful predictions of sea level rise is highly debatable. Maybe check this for starters.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/29/hansen-falsified-his-extreme-sea-level-rise-projections-are-drowning-in-hubris/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/28/an-answer-to-is-the-rise-in-sea-levels-accelerating/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/28/ooops-alarm-over-sinking-islands-premature-as-sea-level-falls-at-kwajalein-atoll/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/05/benchmarking-ipccs-warming-predictions/

And finally, is this what AGW skeptics have to look forward to?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/04/prosecuting-climate-chaos-skeptics-with-rico/

I am open to the idea that mankind contributes to affecting the global climate. However, I just can't buy the idea that man's contribution is the primary factor driving climate change as the evidence does not appear to me to be anywhere near conclusive.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 5 2016, 08:15 PM

The problem was not that a paper was funded by the oil industry. The problem was that Happer was caught shopping himself around, volunteering to write any paper you want him to write, for an hourly fee. Yeah, that pretty much disqualifies him as an authoritative source .




You object to models because they are semi-empirical? There's guy named Einstein who devised a semi empirical field equation which been extremely successful. You should probably take your objections up with him .

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 5 2016, 09:58 PM

1: I can see how that would be a problem but I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing is going on with some of the folks applying for grants to study climate change. It also goes to show how data can be made to look pretty much however you want to make it look if you cherry pick and leave out or revise data that doesn't support your hypothesis. It's a 2 way street. Either side can be , and has been accused of this.

2: Ok sure, but at the time when this equation was devised, was there a consensus among other scientists that this equation was solid, or was he standing alone? If there were many scientists who disagreed, it just goes to show that one guy could be right while a group of others can be wrong. The point being that having a consensus can, but does not necessarily mean something is true or valid. Sometimes in science, the minority or just one person ends up having the most valid theory or hypothesis.

I just feel that there is quite a bit of exaggeration from the AGW crowd as to how much they think they know, the predictions they make, the data they use and the models created using that data, the margins of error in the papers etc. And then there are the further exaggerations of the viability of some of the alternative energy sources proposed which is getting off topic I guess, but I am just thinking we are moving too fast on something that we are really not that sure of. And that some of the things proposed may actually do more harm than good.

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 5 2016, 10:39 PM

Actually, no. That's why that case was so notorious. It's highly unusual.


Sure, but that doesn't say anything about whether the consensus is right or wrong on a particular issue. That would be like saying: As long as one person believes the earth is flat, the consensus view the world is round should not be believed. That's why the preponderance of facts and the accompanying consensus is important. Otherwise, we'd be paralyzed as a society and never get anywhere.




And that's really the heart of the matter here. For various reasons, there are people, on both sides of the issue, who are not swayed by the facts. That's ok. It's valid to have feelings about the issue. But, to paraphrase what I mentioned earlier, at the end of the day, scientific consensus is a rational basis for public policy. Gut feelings about the matter, whether they are mine or yours, is not .

Posted by: fkalich Apr 5 2016, 11:48 PM

Noteworthy that none of the authors of these articles has any listed credentials whatever, academic or otherwise. It is pretty hard to find people of that caliber who discount the seriousness of the global warming issue. You don't see a lot a Harvard or Stanford or MIT PhD's or such next to their names. And on the rare occasions where they actually are academic with advanced degrees, invariably they are from a discipline that is not even in the realm of Earth Science, such as with Hopper.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 6 2016, 06:25 AM

Is a degree needed to compile data that was put together by people who do have degrees in order to make a presentation?
Al Gore doesn't have a PHD either.

Anyway, since I didn't feel like spending a lot of time digging up peer reviewed papers. I was simply showing that there are opposing views that are a reflection of studies that are put to together by qualified scientists. And that the claim that climate models have been good at forecasting sea level rise is debatable. And it seems to me the models haven't been very good at all in helping to predict annual sea ice either. Which is directly related.

It may be hard to find people of that caliber who discount the seriousness of the global warming issue. But it's not so hard to find those who disagree with mankind being the primary driver of it, and plenty who are qualified as far as I can tell.
In fact here is one who jumped the AGW ship to join the skeptics.

http://www.thegwpf.org/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-gwpf-voices-shock-and-concern-at-the-extent-of-intolerance-within-the-climate-science-community/

https://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-bengtsson-speaks-out/

There are those within the AGW community that have written, or contributed to papers who also are "not in the realm" of study.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 6 2016, 06:59 PM

No what? Scientists on the AGW side haven't been accused of impropriety? Of course they have , it's part of the reason why a good number of folks (quite possibly a majority) especially in this country either don't believe or don't see it as a priority.

I was merely pointing out that a consensus group can be wrong and has been in the past. As I have already stated , I am not so sure there is a consensus anyway. There are far too many problems with the models to be advancing far reaching policies with this particular issue in my opinion, consensus or not. Could it be that the so called consensus is just a conformity to a politically correct idea?

And we are not talking about facts here, at least not when it is said that man is the primary driver of climate change. That is in no way, shape, or form, a fact. Sure, there is some factual data, but there is also a lot of guesswork and unknown variables, or variables that are not fully understood yet, and the science has not progressed far enough to enact policy at this point the way I see it.

There may actually be a consensus of skeptics.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#660e1d39171b

Posted by: Rammikin Apr 6 2016, 10:46 PM

Thanks. I think I'm pretty clear on your opinion at this point .

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 6 2016, 11:07 PM

Much of the opposition (present company excluded if desired) for climate change stems from a concern/fear that embracing the idea of climate change will result in policy changes that push the Govt toward the left via sustained expenditures and growth of govt entitites. Of course posters here may have way different reasons, far be it from me to pigeon hole folks Still, that idea of "growing govt" and extended expenditures, make many folks who lean to the right a bit sick to their stomach.

For folk leaning other directions, the evidence at hand seems to quite substantial and valid for making policy changes that could result long term expenditures of tax dollars and new branches/institutions of Govt. seem a small price to pay for preventing the worsening weather patterns, sea level rise, sinking islands and coastal regions etc.

But that's what forums are for and that's what democracy is for too We get to try to vote somebody in to try to do something about it Hopefully. Then again, we might just stick our head in the sand until the waves start to eat the shoreline here on home turf.

Posted by: jstcrsn Apr 7 2016, 02:19 AM

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2014/01/14/mit-professor-urging-climate-change-activists-to-slow-down/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/04/28/press-ignores-harvard-prof-alleging-astonishing-interference-latest-ipcc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen

there are plenty mit. and other notable scientist that think there is plenty of time for an honest evaluation

Posted by: fkalich Apr 7 2016, 05:12 AM

You keep providing this Internet references, not any scholarly peer reviewed sources, not something coming out of Stanford or Cal Tech, just Internet source crap.

This is going to sound pretentious. I don't even have TV in my home by choice, I read books, largely science and history to occupy myself. Books that are reasonably scholarly. Not necessarily academic, but which would still be read by academics and respected. I can't prove this, but I can establish the high probability that I am a scholarly type who would be inclined to be well read in science, as I have four University Diplomas from respected Universities, three of those advanced degrees, and two of those mathematically based. I could upload photos of diplomas if you doubt this. I worked as a subcontractor to NASA for a number of years, I could also prove that with documents. That is my point of reference.

I have never in my life heard from anyone with a background similar to mine in terms of education that discounts the seriousness of global warming, and the fact that man's activities are increasing the levels of green house gases. Yes Hopper has a PhD, but he is suspect of bing a hired gun for interests financially concerned. It is hard to believe, even with a non-earth science background, anyone with a PhD in any science could possibly really believe the things he says. Then again, Joseph Goebbles had a PhD and he clearly believed the Nazi nonsense.

Sure these levels of green house gasses have varied over the past 4.56 billion years or our planet's existence, but never in a time when we had to support over 7 billion people. Even what seem as small, a few degrees increases would have a dramatic effect, and deleterious scenarios are very easy to envision, beneficial scenarios very difficult to postulate. The oceans, that is where the real serious risk is, our very existence is dependent on the health of the oceans, and the continued flow of ocean currents.

This is just one of the time bombs out there, and probably not the worst one ecologically. The loss of top soil at 1% a year may be the worst one, we have already lost 30% of it world wide, we are losing it at a rate of 30 to 40 times the replenish rate. So much of agricultural output is dependent on ground water which will be largely depleted by the end of the century, and take centuries to replenish. And there are so many more ecological time bombs converging. It gets down to trying to feed a world population pushing 10 billion, and the inevitability of not being able to do so. Currently 3.7 billion people are malnourished. In a few decades they will be starving. Global warming will exacerbate this as it will cause lower crop yields due much of the world either getting a lot less rain, and much of it getting too much rain, the extremes caused by global warming is the issue here.

The only thing I can hope is that what I read in terms of comments on Internet, is not really the mindset of most people, but I am fearful that it is, too many people whose education is limited to watching videos and reading Internet crap, having very strong opinions.

I am out of this discussion, it is just too depressing. Not just this thread being so, I also looked at comments on a Hopper video and nearly every one of those people commenting fell for his dog and pony show. I am old, I don't have that much to lose, I can't complain if I die tonight, having lived in the best of times I would say. It is you young guys who are going to pay the price for living in a society that no longer puts any premium on the world that future generations will have to live in.

Posted by: SirJamsalot Apr 7 2016, 07:33 AM

I really do hate doomsday prophesies. 10 years ago we had 10 years before sea levels would create havoc - that was scientifically proven according to Al Gore. It never ends. Is climate affected by stuff? Of course. Some would say hurricanes are affected by butterflies on a different continent. I'm partly to blame every time I pass gas I think we're stretching the bounds of what science can know given all the variables though. I mean, if there are any real culprits to climate change, I'd look at the sun-spot activity before john's lawnmower. but whatever. Spend 10 bucks on a light bulb if it makes you feel better. everyone dies eventually. We got worse things in this world to worry about.

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 7 2016, 08:02 PM

You haven't heard of the over 1000 peer reviewed papers that dispute AGW? You seem to be all hung up on Hopper when there are plenty of other pre-eminent scientists, including many who are among the most notable scientists of our times, Nobel prize winners and the most heavily published and cited scientists of our days - in the hard sciences no less, who adamantly disagree with the idea of any significant AGW. And that suggest Natural Variation easily explains current warming and sea level rise since the Little Ice Age including the last 50 years or so where man has produced significant levels of CO2.

Below are some of the things that my opinion is based on:

The AGW hypothesis, fails to explain many periods of past warming which were analogous to present day warming. It also fails to explain why the historical records show clearly that temperature virtually ALWAYS increases roughly 800 years PRIOR to CO2 levels increasing, and then temperatures drop BEFORE C02 levels drop.

The only "line of evidence" which allows us to conclude that man is the cause of recent warming is from climate MODELS. Models programmed by AGW advocates and which cannot even backcast accurately, and which have dismally failed to predict future temperatures or match empirical evidence.

Models aren't evidence - they can be useful tools, but are notorious for GIGO - Garbage In, Garbage Out. According to all of the official global temperature databases, we haven't even had any significant warming for over a decade, up to 23 years in some of them, and yet during that time CO2 has continued to increase every bit as fast, and 25% of all man-generated CO2 was produced. The AGW hypothesis is violated right there.

Is it so hard to believe that there could be ulterior motives behind this whole thing when in the past governments have done all kinds of sneaky, underhanded and even devious things to influence the populace to get behind them and advance their agenda? It would be foolhardy to not even consider the possibility.

PS: My Uncle is a graduate of Yale and holds degree's in Forestry and Environmental Management and has at least 40 years experience in the field and he is a skeptic too.

Posted by: Todd Simpson Apr 7 2016, 09:03 PM

Skepticism is healthy As are differing thoughts on any given issue. It do thees seem though that we have reached a point where folks have said their bit and it's starting to get repetitive. That's usually when it loses the attraction for me personally. Just like they said in cool hand luke, "what we have here is a failure to communicate. There are some people you just can't reach". I know we would all like to think that our minds are open to new ideas, even if they contradict our own, but sadly, it's often not the case.

The good news is that we have had a rousing back and forth on a very important issue. So thanks everyone for sharing their thoughts. I"m going to go back to practicing See you guys Saturday!!

Todd

Posted by: AK Rich Apr 7 2016, 10:14 PM

Sorry for the repetitiveness guys. I guess to me it appeared some things said were missed along the way. I do respect everyone's opinion here and just because we disagree doesn't mean I have any hard feelings toward anyone at all . To some it may seem that my mind is closed on the issue but I can assure you I am open to the possibilities of just about anything. Heck, my father's whole side of the family are conservationist, so I have been brought up to respect nature and take care not to destroy the environment. So it's not like I simply don't care about the environment because I truly do.

See ya Saturday, Todd. Just like most Saturdays.