Global Warming

[TheBeav815]

There's nothing that can be said to people when it's become a part of their political identity to deny scientific evidence. This is the same thing as the vaccine conversation; somebody decides they won't believe it and if you show them evidence they just say, "That evidence is corrupt, it was generated by the global conspiracy." You cannot convince that mindset. What's goofy is that the science-deniers about climate camp out not very far on the right, and the science-deniers about vaccines camp out on the far left.

Basically where I come out is this: Maybe it's not all man-made, but we ain't helping. It would be wise of us to help rather than to hope for some volcanic eruption so massive that it blocks out the sun for 2 years and hits the reset button on temps for us.

Much of the future of this issue rests with electric utilities. Improvements in solar tech are changing that game, and they're not getting smart and building their own mass solar installations. They're letting consumers build arrays on their own property and take the piss out of their revenue stream. Then they're gonna try to fight that by outlawing net metering and charging flat rates for service, which would punish the most judicious users and motivate them to try to disconnect entirely.

Efficient, widespread solar generating is the end of utility prices as they exist today. Wind is fine and all, but I have heard over and over about how it's not cost-effective without huge subsidy. They would do well to built their own solar farms with supplemental gas-fired generating and charge a fair price. Otherwise the spread of rooftop solar may well break their backs.

What's fascinating to me is that you're all ready to believe the "other guys" got to the scientists and they're the corrupt ones, it's not that the industries with massive skin in the fossil fuels game got to the politicians and told them to brand global warming as a hoax. Even though it couldn't be easier to show that politicians of all stripes get HUGE sums of money from oil companies.

 

[Husker Todd]

There's nothing that can be said to people when it's become a part of their political identity to deny scientific evidence. This is the same thing as the vaccine conversation; somebody decides they won't believe it and if you show them evidence they just say, "That evidence is corrupt, it was generated by the global conspiracy." You cannot convince that mindset. What's goofy is that the science-deniers about climate camp out not very far on the right, and the science-deniers about vaccines camp out on the far left.

Basically where I come out is this: Maybe it's not all man-made, but we ain't helping. It would be wise of us to help rather than to hope for some volcanic eruption so massive that it blocks out the sun for 2 years and hits the reset button on temps for us.

Much of the future of this issue rests with electric utilities. Improvements in solar tech are changing that game, and they're not getting smart and building their own mass solar installations. They're letting consumers build arrays on their own property and take the piss out of their revenue stream. Then they're gonna try to fight that by outlawing net metering and charging flat rates for service, which would punish the most judicious users and motivate them to try to disconnect entirely.

Efficient, widespread solar generating is the end of utility prices as they exist today. Wind is fine and all, but I have heard over and over about how it's not cost-effective without huge subsidy. They would do well to built their own solar farms with supplemental gas-fired generating and charge a fair price. Otherwise the spread of rooftop solar may well break their backs.

What's fascinating to me is that you're all ready to believe the "other guys" got to the scientists and they're the corrupt ones, it's not that the industries with massive skin in the fossil fuels game got to the politicians and told them to brand global warming as a hoax. Even though it couldn't be easier to show that politicians of all stripes get HUGE sums of money from oil companies.

You got us all on that one, damn oil companies destroying our government and way of life. Because companies in the green industry don't have any skin in the game, they wouldn't be giving any money to politicians.

The truth is there are two sides to every issue and the politicians are taking money from both of them. The politicians don't care which side is right, they only have one cause they stand up for and that is growing their bank account.

Here is an article about green stimulus.

http://blogcritics.org/general-electric-making-bank-off-obamas/

Interesting side note GE and NBC are under the same corporate umbrella, funny how during the presidential campaigns you didn't see one damning report about Obama from NBC.

 

[TheBeav815]

You got us all on that one, damn oil companies destroying our government and way of life. Because companies in the green industry don't have any skin in the game, they wouldn't be giving any money to politicians.

The truth is there are two sides to every issue and the politicians are taking money from both of them. The politicians don't care which side is right, they only have one cause they stand up for and that is growing their bank account.

Here is an article about green stimulus.

http://blogcritics.org/general-electric-making-bank-off-obamas/

Interesting side note GE and NBC are under the same corporate umbrella, funny how during the presidential campaigns you didn't see one damning report about Obama from NBC.

Very chicken or egg on those pieces of how some piece of legislation that sounds well-intentioned enough turns into more or less a money hydrant that gets left open. Was it a bunch of stupid, corrupt crap from its inception, or did it get gradually modified as it it moved through congress to become stupid, corrupt crap?

I guess you could hold renewables up to the same microscope we might hold weapons systems up to. For every failed attempt at a way to generate power in this article, how many dumb ideas straight out of a sci-fi novel are sitting on the DARPA scrap heap? How many bad rocket designs are sitting on the history of NASA's balance sheets?

That's the mentality you have to take with R&D. You can't expect it all to be rapidly profitable. Some if it you can't ever expect to be profitable. You're spending money to pay people to figure out what works and what doesn't. Can waste and corruption enter in there? Of course.

But idealogically, I'm ok with tax money going to that sort of thing, because while it may not be viable on a large scale now, it's fostering research and competition. You may not like space exploration or war, but I'm betting there are all manner of space and military technologies that were released to civilians that we wouldn't want to have taken away from us today.

 

[Husker Todd]

@TheBeav815 you have clearly missed the point. It's not your stance on climate change that I have taken umbrage with. I find it laughable that you take the stance that only oil companies have huge skin in the game. The linked article was only to show that green companies stand to make a lot of money. So why is it any less likely that they would be corrupt and throwing about large sums of cash to the politicians. Let's not be naive here, yes there are corrupt scientist who will give an opinion that will keep their funding dollars coming. You have to look at who's funding them. If I fund a group of scientists and I believe in climate change and they give me the wrong answer I'm going to pull their funding and give it to scientists who will give the right answer.

Now I'm not going to debate climate change with you, because I don't care. In 200 years if the human race disappears from the planet, it will l have no effect on me. The reason for this has two scenarios. Either you believe there is no heaven and we just become worm food or you do believe in heaven and it won't bother you that your descendants are wiped out because you believe they are coming to join you in a better place.

The reason I don't concern myself with climate change, is the fact the Earth was here long before us and will be here long after the human race has gone extinct. When Earth has met it's end it won't be because of us, it is human arrogance to think otherwise.

 

[TheBeav815]

@TheBeav815 you have clearly missed the point. It's not your stance on climate change that I have taken umbrage with. I find it laughable that you take the stance that only oil companies have huge skin in the game. The linked article was only to show that green companies stand to make a lot of money. So why is it any less likely that they would be corrupt and throwing about large sums of cash to the politicians. Let's not be naive here, yes there are corrupt scientist who will give an opinion that will keep their funding dollars coming. You have to look at who's funding them. If I fund a group of scientists and I believe in climate change and they give me the wrong answer I'm going to pull their funding and give it to scientists who will give the right answer.

Now I'm not going to debate climate change with you, because I don't care. In 200 years if the human race disappears from the planet, it will l have no effect on me. The reason for this has two scenarios. Either you believe there is no heaven and we just become worm food or you do believe in heaven and it won't bother you that your descendants are wiped out because you believe they are coming to join you in a better place.

The reason I don't concern myself with climate change, is the fact the Earth was here long before us and will be here long after the human race has gone extinct. When Earth has met it's end it won't be because of us, it is human arrogance to think otherwise.

They certainly could be corrupt and/or spending money to sway things in their favor. Which I wish they wouldn't, but basically they'd be stupid if they didn't because that's how the game is played here.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

Stephen Hawking, who just because he is Stephen Hawking, can decide to look into anything he wants and doesn't have to rely on grants from anyone. It's all part of his being, well, Stephen Hawking. With no skin in the game he decided to take a look at the claims of global warming some 4 years ago and his conclusion is that manmade climate change is the single greatest danger currently facing mankind. I have to admit that has a major influence on my thoughts.

 

[big red22]

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

http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/global-ice-viewer/#/4/6

 

[Archie Graham]

There is absolutely no question that humans are contributing to climate change. The scientific debate is centered upon the magnitude of our contribution.

 

[red rover 70]

Stephen Hawking, who just because he is Stephen Hawking, can decide to look into anything he wants and doesn't have to rely on grants from anyone. It's all part of his being, well, Stephen Hawking. With no skin in the game he decided to take a look at the claims of global warming some 4 years ago and his conclusion is that manmade climate change is the single greatest danger currently facing mankind. I have to admit that has a major influence on my thoughts.

How many of these great minds are self-proclaimed socialist, liberals and progressives??? Frome my experience some of the most intellectual people couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

 

[red rover 70]

There is absolutely no question that humans are contributing to climate change. The scientific debate is centered upon the magnitude of our contribution.

Saying we contribute is a loaded phrase. That literally could mean anything or nothing.

 

[red rover 70]

I'll say it again man-made climate change is one of the biggest scams ever perpetrated.

 

[red rover 70]

You say Stephen Hawking's has no skin in the game???

http://www.cnet.com/news/stephen-hawking-makes-it-clear-there-is-no-god/

 

[red rover 70]

Yeah... Stephen Hawking's has no skin in the game???
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_574cf2cae4b055bb11729103

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

Many psychologists say that narcissism is far and away the most common mental disease in America today. One of the most common signs of narcissism is the inability to see past one's own opinion. When the opinion of a person suffering from narcissism is countered by the opinion of a person or group of persons who have a far greater knowledge on the subject than the narcissist, he/she refuses to even consider that his/her opinion may be wrong. Instead, he/she sees in the opposing opinion a sign of a conspiracy or ascribes all sorts of nefarious intentions to those with the countering opinion. The narcissist engages in increasingly irrational behavior to justify his/her opinion in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary. The narcissist simply cannot consider the possibility that he/she is wrong because, well, his/her opinion is, by his/her definition, incapable of being wrong.

 

[red rover 70]

Many psychologists say that narcissism is far and away the most common mental disease in America today. One of the most common signs of narcissism is the inability to see past one's own opinion. When the opinion of a person suffering from narcissism is countered by the opinion of a person or group of persons who have a far greater knowledge on the subject than the narcissist, he/she refuses to even consider that his/her opinion may be wrong. Instead, he/she sees in the opposing opinion a sign of a conspiracy or ascribes all sorts of nefarious intentions to those with the countering opinion. The narcissist engages in increasingly irrational behavior to justify his/her opinion in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary. The narcissist simply cannot consider the possibility that he/she is wrong because, well, his/her opinion is, by his/her definition, incapable of being wrong.

If the planet Earth was a static environment then you might be on to something. But guess what it's not.

 

[Soda Popinski]

If the planet Earth was a static environment then you might be on to something. But guess what it's not.

 

[red rover 70]

 

[red rover 70]

I love this movie poster. It literally obliterates the man made climate change theory. And it's a stupid kid's movie.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

If the planet Earth was a static environment then you might be on to something. But guess what it's not.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the opinion of a narcissist, but even dynamic system can be altered significantly by introducing a new variable. That's basic chemistry I learned in 11th grade. True, it's easier to alter a static system but that's irrelevant.

 

[red rover 70]

I'm not sure what that has to do with the opinion of a narcissist, but even dynamic system can be altered significantly by introducing a new variable. That's basic chemistry I learned in 11th grade. True, it's easier to alter a static system but that's irrelevant.

I think it's narcissistic to believe that we are causing something that's happened a thousand times before without our help. The Earth will have another Ice Age and it'll all melt again with or without our help.

 

[red rover 70]

I'm going to perform my own man-made experiment here...

I am proclaiming myself God and ruler of the planet Earth. And it showed my ultimate power I will make the sun go down tonight. And by the grace and generosity bestowed by me I will make the Sun rise tomorrow. And to prove my power even more I will command it to drop in the west and rise in the east. But in my mercy if you pay me tribute I will continue to allow this to happen day after day and proclaim me on high.

Damn... All Gore was on to something with his carbon credits.

 

[Husker Todd]

Many psychologists say that narcissism is far and away the most common mental disease in America today. One of the most common signs of narcissism is the inability to see past one's own opinion. When the opinion of a person suffering from narcissism is countered by the opinion of a person or group of persons who have a far greater knowledge on the subject than the narcissist, he/she refuses to even consider that his/her opinion may be wrong. Instead, he/she sees in the opposing opinion a sign of a conspiracy or ascribes all sorts of nefarious intentions to those with the countering opinion. The narcissist engages in increasingly irrational behavior to justify his/her opinion in the face of increasing evidence to the contrary. The narcissist simply cannot consider the possibility that he/she is wrong because, well, his/her opinion is, by his/her definition, incapable of being wrong.

Hello Kettle, pot here.

 

[k9_r]

There is absolutely no question that humans are contributing to climate change. The scientific debate is centered upon the magnitude of our contribution.

This is absolutely wrong. Questions abound.

 

[red rover 70]

This is absolutely wrong. Questions abound.

In all fairness to Archie we are contributing to warming and cooling of the earth. But it's not on the scale some want to affect social engineering. Every time I fart outside I'm contributing to global warming. And every time I dump my glass of ice water out on the deck I'm contributing to the global cooling. Man made climate change at it's finest.

 

[k9_r]

In all fairness to Archie we are contributing to warming and cooling of the earth. But it's not on the scale some want to affect social engineering. Every time I fart outside I'm contributing to global warming. And every time I dump my glass of ice water out on the deck I'm contributing to the global cooling. Man made climate change at it's finest.

Right, but, in fairness to the argument, when a contribution is so insignificantly tiny that it produces no measurable change, that contribution is no contribution.

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

Hello Kettle, pot here.

If you are suggesting that I'm unwilling to change my opinion that's nonsense, and it's nonsensical for you to suggest that based on a couple of my posts. Until I read Hawking's papers on climate change I tended to think that while man certainly had an effect on climate, that effect was minimal and not worth worrying about. However, when a man of his intelligence sets his mind to collection and analysis of data and comes to a conclusion that is contrary to mine, I tend to take notice of that. Plus following up on that to a small extent has shown me that climate-change skeptics tend to misrepresent and even falsify the data. Not all of them certainly, but the I already posted one example of the misrepresentation based on the false argument that "in the '70's all scientists were saying the earth is cooling and now they say it is warming; they can't even make up their minds". So my opinion has shifted significantly over time.

 

[red rover 70]

If you are suggesting that I'm unwilling to change my opinion that's nonsense, and it's nonsensical for you to suggest that based on a couple of my posts. Until I read Hawking's papers on climate change I tended to think that while man certainly had an effect on climate, that effect was minimal and not worth worrying about. However, when a man of his intelligence sets his mind to collection and analysis of data and comes to a conclusion that is contrary to mine, I tend to take notice of that. Plus following up on that to a small extent has shown me that climate-change skeptics tend to misrepresent and even falsify the data. Not all of them certainly, but the I already posted one example of the misrepresentation based on the false argument that "in the '70's all scientists were saying the earth is cooling and now they say it is warming; they can't even make up their minds". So my opinion has shifted significantly over time.

I think it's pretty narcissistic to think a higher power isn't behind everything. Call it God, Supreme Being, Creator, Mother Earth or just a higher state of awareness?

 

[HuskerBlueDevil]

I think it's pretty narcissistic to think a higher power isn't behind everything. Call it God, Supreme Being, Creator, Mother Earth or just a higher state of awareness?

That really doesn't fit anywhere in the standard definition of narcissism. It's a generalization, but narcissists actually often believe in a Higher Power and that the Higher Power is what made them special/superior to other humans. Sort of a 'God loves me more than anyone else' belief. I suppose someone could be so deeply narcissistic that he could believe that he was god or a god. That's beyond my knowledge of the Narcissistic personality disorder. But then, by definition, the narcissist would believe in a god, it just would be him.

 

[nebcountry]

First, I don't question that the planet is warming. I do question to what extent the warming is "man-made". There are concerns that data manipulation by climate researchers does not present an unbiased picture of what is happening. CO2 levels have been going higher pretty much every year since data acquisition was first established. Seems like a couple years ago we broke 400 ppm atmospheric CO2. But, I can't tell anyone if that is significant or not, because as far as I can tell, I've never seen or heard of any studies that experts agree on to backup or deny a certain and measurable impact.

This subject is interesting to me (a side note to my official timekeeper, I've spent way too much time on this). This is what I could tell someone, but I don't know if any of it is "true":

Increased greenhouse gases COULD be a contributor (no idea of how significant) to global warming. Something like 95% of atmospheric retained solar heating is due to water vapor. That leaves roughly 5% contribution from greenhouse gases. Humans are responsible for roughly 3% of the greenhouse gases, the other 97% come from nature. So we contribute a small percentage of a small percentage.

I find myself waiting for science to explain what's going on. And everyone is more than welcome to dispute the numbers I listed, heck just search and start clicking links and you'll find all kinds of different numbers. Imo, there's too much money involved.

 

[ssmill777]

My scientific side makes me consider that if you change some of the variables you can change the outcome. Particulate pollution, gaseous pollution, CO2, landscape changes, etc. all kinds of variables that we can affect.

My pragmatic side makes me consider that the earth has went through many hot and cold cycles, and we have made scientific observations for just a relative few.

I don't know if we are experiencing a man-made global warming.

Sad thing is - I don't think it's really about global warming at all. I think that is just a smoke screen for their desire to slap some carbon emission tax on the wealthier nations (which won't help global warming at all), and distribute it to the poorer nations, which I doubt will happen either. Global elitists can simply put the word out on how to use the media (which they own) to sway public opinion whatever way they want. It's just obvious to me - with all the disagreement among the scientists - that there's no real issue about global warming, just another way to create a problem, beat it to death through the media, and then when people scream about "what are we going to do"?, they come along with another tax of some kind, or steal away another freedom. JMO

 

[Archie Graham]

Saying we contribute is a loaded phrase. That literally could mean anything or nothing.

No it isn't. The physics surrounding greenhouse gases isn't debated one bit. look up the most vocal opponents of climate change in the scientific community and you won't find a different opinion.

 

[Archie Graham]

This is absolutely wrong. Questions abound.

You're dead wrong.

 

[Huskerfan2112]

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...ging-to-planet-than-co2-from-cars-427843.html

Why do the cows get a free pass?????

 

[TheLiberalHunter]

They certainly could be corrupt and/or spending money to sway things in their favor. Which I wish they wouldn't, but basically they'd be stupid if they didn't because that's how the game is played here.

Sorry Beav, I got tied up at work and the thread got locked before I could answer the Tax thingy. That chart doesn't say how many people were affected by the 91% Rate. I didn't see any related income levels, etc to really know what the heck to do with it. I'm guessing few, if any, so I'm not sure how that plays in. Combine that with the fact that was the coming age of Tax Shelters and it's really hard to say what happened 50 years ago would work now. That was a Post War Economy with rebuilding the world, etc...

Good thoughts, though.

 

[red rover 70]

No it isn't. The physics surrounding greenhouse gases isn't debated one bit. look up the most vocal opponents of climate change in the scientific community and you won't find a different opinion.

You're dead wrong.

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

 

[OkeyDokeyNU]

How many of these great minds are self-proclaimed socialist, liberals and progressives??? Frome my experience some of the most intellectual people couldn't think their way out of a paper bag.

Sometimes I literally hate this board. Stfu, Red Rover. Your ability to google and follow half-assed blogs doesn't equate to intelligence. Intelligence is absolute, and cannot be learned.

I think you need to sit down and decipher the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

 

[tjsker]

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

You're dead wrong.

So what is different with all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere?

 

[red rover 70]

Sometimes I literally hate this board. Stfu, Red Rover. Your ability to google and follow half-assed blogs doesn't equate to intelligence. Intelligence is absolute, and cannot be learned.

I think you need to sit down and decipher the difference between intelligence and knowledge.

So what is different with all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere?

The man made global climate change coalition will come up with yet another junk science theory as to why the planet is still spinning round and round. It's all they have because man made global climate change like they are talking is total BS. Our man made Co2 hasn't cause a planetary cooling like what happened when Mary Shelley wrote Frankenstein? Did we build a new huge coal fired plant that year! . They say man made Co2 is different then natural causing Co2 and isn't recycled the same! Right??? Sounds like the same junk science that is trotted out every 20 or so years to explain why they are wrong yet again.

 

[red rover 70]

@OkeyDokeyNU
I grew up when you actually had to read books. I had an edition of Encyclopedia Britannica that I used to read all the time growing up. It was my bed time routine. Also I was educated and received my diploma from Lincoln Pius X. It's one of the reasons I can debate and challenge anyone. They truly prepared their graduates for the world.

 

[Archie Graham]

http://www.livescience.com/40451-volcanic-co2-levels-are-staggering.html

So...how does this debunk the physics surrounding greenhouse gases. Hint: It doesn't. Not at all.

Some of you guys are so far in the tank for a conspiracy that you're not even willing to digest a general statement at face value. I'm not suggesting the planet is doomed, or that we should torpedo our own economy to slow emissions, or that we should jump on board a global battle to combat emissions.

I'm very clearly noting that there is no debate as to whether or not greenhouse gases contribute to warming, and since we are responsible for a large output of gas emissions, we are contributing to warming. The question is how much we are contributing....and your commentary about a glass of ice water lacks merit. That is absolutely NOT what any reasonable personable would contribute when having a conversation about climate change.