The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[Sgt.Stedenko]

The tobacco executives could never claim there was a decrease in smoking deaths.
The polar bear population has increased 5 fold since the 1950s.
Winning!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

the facts behind what we are talking about are impossible to get a grip on anymore.

Not exactly. Tell the folks who pipe Al Gore and world domination to keep on piping. Their political views are fodder to the science and entertainment to the rest of us.

Tell the folks who offer bs science to get with the scientific process. When their peer-reviewed studies are shown to influence future studies, they're no longer part of the problem. They're now part of the solution.

For the few rogues who actually believe their independent, so-called scientific studies rise above the scientific process of peer-review... sorry suckers.

every think tank is funded by someone, every media outlet can be questioned and there is no way to solve this argument.

Did you see Weird's reference of scientific organizations who believe man's contribution to climate change is certain? Are you suggesting that all these organizations are funded by the same source?

No way to solve this argument? Certainly not in the non-scientific crowd. But we can certainly acknowledge the physical occurrences.

Do these physical occurrences not only prove but explain why and how much the earth is warming (with my limited perspective?) Not in the least. But skeptic arguments are more hard headed than the-benefit-of-the-doubt I lend to the scientific process.

there has been so much published on this subject that NO one person would ever have the time to read it all, and even if one guy could read it there are only a hand full of people who could even understand it all.

Why imagine that one person fathom what scientists in the hundreds of thousands study on a day to day basis? Wouldn't logic suggest that hundreds of thousands of scientists each have their own fields of expertise?

IMO, it's unrealistic to suggest the debate is undetermined because any single person can't process all the information completely.

there are no idiots in thread. it is obvious that people have spent some time thinking about what they are posting but the fact is none of us really KNOW what the hell is going on with this. information is subject to the view of any given reader, there are a couple of very old books that mankind has been "discussing" for a day or two, and you don't see those fights cooling down. even when 2 believers read the same book they see different things.

With all due respect, we have science professionals who determine these things and the world's problems don't have to be left up to a group of laymen expressing their personal opinions.

SPIN IN OUR EVERYDAY LIVES IS A GREATER THREAT TO US ALL THAN MANBEARPIG EVER WILL BE!

Go back to any (pre) Joe-public, scientific studies and you won't see Joe public obfuscations. Special interests have long known that politicizing the debate begets all kinds of folks that imagine their street smarts are just as sound as peer-reviewed science.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The tobacco executives could never claim there was a decrease in smoking deaths.

Check out the 60 Minutes interview the movie The Insider is based on. Tobacco executives denied their own findings that were scientifically proven as early as the 1950s. They even lied under oath about anything that justified culpability.

The polar bear population has increased 5 fold since the 1950s.

Won't be long now before skeptics suggest the so-called 5-fold increase is directly due to swimming 3 and 4 miles between ice patches.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I saw that 60 Minutes. Pretty damning stuff.
Makes you wonder why the Justice Department went after Roger Clemmens for perjury (and failed) rather than these crooks.
Steriods in baseball is killing this country. Never mind the national debt, folks.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

What's really discouraging is it took decades to get big tobacco to publicly admit what they already knew (w/o taking their defense to the general public.)

 

[greenmatter]

lots of good points there disco i just wish i was computer savy enough to break my answer down like that .........

i was not saying the scientific process can really be disputed. but for right now political views are clouding the water so bad that the process is tough to even see.

no not all think tanks are funded by the same group. the point i was trying to make is there are so many different interests in this that it is hard to tell if what you are reading IS science or did it make it into the fray because of who wrote the check.

i was not saying that we needed to have one all knowing person to solve this. my point was more the sheer volume of information that has been published on this subject. there are thousands of people who work on this every day because of all the different fields involved. trying to process all that on the fly would be like counting all the grains of sand on a beach before the sun comes up.

yes we do have science professionals who determine these things and if they could just BE professional about what they do, we would debate less and do more...... but they can't all see eye to eye even if they are reading the same book, which trickles down to the laymen.

i did pick up all the non joe-public studies BEFORE the media got to be a major player in this , which is where i formed most of my opinions on this subject. i 100% agree that we are fucking things up, i don't think i ever said anything to make anyone think otherwise. sometimes science and street smarts are brought together to form an opinion. like i said i never needed Gore to tell me about this subject. there were folks actually trying to address what should be done about this problem before he was even thinking about being VP.


maybe i should state my position a little more clearly ..... from everything i have read YES global warming is happening. can i prove to you or anyone that mankind is at fault NO. do i think we are wasting precious time ding nothing YES. do i think that is exactly what they wanted to be happening when they started twisting the story and clouding the water... YOU BET YOUR ASS THEY DID ..... and it will continue to work as long as we keep bitching at each other.

 

[greenmatter]

I saw that 60 Minutes. Pretty damning stuff.
Makes you wonder why the Justice Department went after Roger Clemmens for perjury (and failed) rather than these crooks.
Steriods in baseball is killing this country. Never mind the national debt, folks.

come on sarge .... but baseball is as american as the shell game ..... it can be very hard to keep your eye on the ball

 

[grapeman]

The same skeptics that said tobacco doesn't kill and petroleum is actually good for you also say 3 and 4 miles between ice patches isn't too far for land mammals to swim.

Yeah well polar bears regularly swim up to 40 miles from floe to floe and have done so for eons. You'd know that if you read up a bit.

Just another fact coming your way, busting down the ignorance that is GW.

 

[grapeman]

Check out the 60 Minutes interview the movie The Insider is based on. Tobacco executives denied their own findings that were scientifically proven as early as the 1950s. They even lied under oath about anything that justified culpability.

I don't quite get the connection between the global warming hoax and that tobacco isn't bad for you.

Wait..... ok, I see it now. You are comparing the GW faux scientists to the tobacco executives. I see, I see. With the government coverup and all.

OK then.

BTW - with last week's "heat dome" that was hyped all over the news ad nauseum, I cannot find one record temp day in any city for that week. Maybe you can help me.

Standard bullshit reporting.

 

[trichrider]

goldarn it's almost average temperature today...about the fourth time this year it has approached average! but then again...

polar bears swim better than Barry Bonds bats.

and yes weather is climate, and climate is changing.

look! you can see the sun today!

... "is being investigated for scientific misconduct, possibly over the veracity of that article.

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Monnett, who has coordinated much of the agency's research on Arctic wildlife and ecology, has duties that include managing about $50 million worth of studies, according to the complaint, a copy of which was provided to The Associated Press."

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/federal-wildlife-biologist-investigated

so follow the money! the rest is assured to affect the effect.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yeah well polar bears regularly swim up to 40 miles from floe to floe and have done so for eons. You'd know that if you read up a bit.

I've read enough grapeman to know he thinks it's all like the back of his hand.

You might could run a marathon between sunup and sundown but it doesn't mean you wouldn't go down for the last time. Now, run a marathon between errands. Humans have been doing it for eons.

 

[Tripsick]

Is this the same info that everyone is bitching about?

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.



"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america/n..._host_hdr=news.yahoo.com&.intl=us&.lang=en-us

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

More than you'll ever want to know about The Heartland Institute.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

Go through the list to find the folks that said nicotine isn't addictive, PCBs aren't cancerous, CFCs don't deplete the ozone/we can't do anything about the Ozone-layer etc etc etc.

These are the same folks that nixed the mission statement on their web-site which stated:

... discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies

Free-market solutions means no regulations​

Big oil will sell the very last drop and only then look to alternatives. They'll lament that alternative energy ain't as bad as they claimed and how nice it would have been to save a little oil for pharma, big ag, the tire industry and thousands of other that don't burn it and send what remains up a chimney.

 

[Weird]

the truth about our environment or our impact on it is not as unknown as complex

the pot head skeptic is a magnification of your own distrust for the accuracy of other peoples information since, as a grower, you live covert lives

its easy therefore int he back of your minds, aka the sub-conscious, especially on a heady sat influenced buzz that triggers predictive thinking to project a alternate motive

take the time to call the local Cornell cooperative or any academic out reach and contact a real scientist who is focused on public education

the real cover up is big industry trying to get people to believe that global warming is not real

WHY

because they are the real perpetrators in global warming and if real regulations and costs are assigned to their actions it will reduce profits

take a look at today's news

Exxon made billions this quarter on inflated oil prices and another big company with profits in the billions only paid 7% taxes

its always greed that is the motivator, not to say that Al Gore or other savvy politicians didn't use this to their advantage.

I think Gore had his own reasons for exposing the "truth" one that he may have been privy to and quiet about it while he profited

greed knows no boundaries but lets be real here the rich can afford to suffer through the cost of this far more than the common man whose children inherit the growing cost of passing the buck to the next generation so a few in this one can profit

"who cares its not like ill be alive ot see it anyway"

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The way I understand it, Al Gore hasn't cornered the cap and trade market any more than he controls commodities. Caps are already being traded and anybody can get in on the game. Bottom feeders won't make out like bandits the way rich folks will but this is no different than the conventional market.

 

[grapeman]

More than you'll ever want to know about The Heartland Institute.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

Go through the list to find the folks that said nicotine isn't addictive, PCBs aren't cancerous, CFCs don't deplete the ozone/we can't do anything about the Ozone-layer etc etc etc.

Shoot the messenger and ignore the message. A Clinton tactic. The Heartland Institute reported but the data came from NASA. Hmmmm.

BTW, in case you haven't been following the news, CFC's were not depleting the ozone. But we spent billions changing all our A/C's anyway.

Another government emergency.

 

[grapeman]

the truth about our environment or our impact on it is not as unknown as complex

the pot head skeptic is a magnification of your own distrust for the accuracy of other peoples information since, as a grower, you live covert lives

its easy therefore int he back of your minds, aka the sub-conscious, especially on a heady sat influenced buzz that triggers predictive thinking to project a alternate motive

take the time to call the local Cornell cooperative or any academic out reach and contact a real scientist who is focused on public education

the real cover up is big industry trying to get people to believe that global warming is not real

WHY

because they are the real perpetrators in global warming and if real regulations and costs are assigned to their actions it will reduce profits

take a look at today's news

Exxon made billions this quarter on inflated oil prices and another big company with profits in the billions only paid 7% taxes

its always greed that is the motivator, not to say that Al Gore or other savvy politicians didn't use this to their advantage.

I think Gore had his own reasons for exposing the "truth" one that he may have been privy to and quiet about it while he profited

greed knows no boundaries but lets be real here the rich can afford to suffer through the cost of this far more than the common man whose children inherit the growing cost of passing the buck to the next generation so a few in this one can profit

"who cares its not like ill be alive ot see it anyway"

Forgive me weird, but WTF are you trying to say exactly?

All I know is that it cost up to $500 million to drill and erect a platform to extract life giving oil.

I for one like to see the oil companies make money and lots of it. I really like to see them plow those profits back into drilling and exploration, to the extent the pinkos in the obama administration let them. If you want to get in on the action, buy some stock.

I like the fact that our fuel costs 1/4 to 1/2 that of European countries.

That low cost of fuel helps you feed your face wierd.

 

[grapeman]

More than you'll ever want to know about The Heartland Institute.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41

Go through the list to find the folks that said nicotine isn't addictive, PCBs aren't cancerous, CFCs don't deplete the ozone/we can't do anything about the Ozone-layer etc etc etc.

These are the same folks that nixed the mission statement on their web-site which stated:

... discover and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies

Free-market solutions means no regulations​

Big oil will sell the very last drop and only then look to alternatives. They'll lament that alternative energy ain't as bad as they claimed and how nice it would have been to save a little oil for pharma, big ag, the tire industry and thousands of other that don't burn it and send what remains up a chimney.

Do you even know why oil is our main source of energy?

 

[greenmatter]

Shoot the messenger and ignore the message. A Clinton tactic. The Heartland Institute reported but the data came from NASA. Hmmmm.

BTW, in case you haven't been following the news, CFC's were not depleting the ozone. But we spent billions changing all our A/C's anyway.

Another government emergency.

"a clinton tactic" i love it! while i would never take any well deserved credit from any politician, old slick willy was not the first to use that tactic and he sure as hell was not the last.

got a link for the CFC thing grape? sounds interesting ......

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Shoot the messenger and ignore the message.

Didn't shoot anybody. Just pointed out the list of so-called experts, the funding and the source of funding.

A Clinton tactic. The Heartland Institute reported but the data came from NASA. Hmmmm.

The 'study' is a Heartland baby. If you took the same data and offered you own study, I'd call it a grape baby.

BTW, in case you haven't been following the news, CFC's were not depleting the ozone.

We've got butt loads of revisionist history. Revisionist science wouldn't surprise me one bit... from that crowd.

But we spent billions changing all our A/C's anyway.

You're approaching billions of bs comments. You know you can change your refrigerant. If your box is too damn old for code, it's time to get a new one.

Another government emergency.

Hell yeah... seeing how Earth is an emergency-free zone and all.

Do you even know why oil is our main source of energy?

Yeah. Because the top 1/10th of 1% is making enough money to spend hundreds of millions to politicize the issue.

Not much different than what you're doing, grape. Pouring your heart out over no alternatives, only to recommend stock purchase. Money and politics are your only motivators.