Global Warming - It's Our Fault

[MatticusMania]

If I may ask, whereabouts in PA?

Right next to Eric Perry's unsellable house.

 

[NWB]

Hmm. So on the one hand you are purporting that human activity can induce major seismic activity, but on the other you are saying that seismic activity is not specific to a single particular event? So humans can cause a single catastrophic event, but the earth is not capable of it?


Also, 3 scientists with grants reporting a story to NBC isn't proof of anything. I want to see the study.

I have already seen the study actually. Have you?

Wow, you are reading things that I never even wrote. Talk about putting words into someone's mouth (or keyboard).

 

[MatticusMania]

or you *could* quantum teleport to any place in the universe spontaneously.

Dont you mess up my Kickstarter campaign!

 

[GregC]

First off, historically, 99% of the time scientists have been dead wrong. About everything.

837.666% of statistics posted on the Internet are made up.

 

[aborgman]

Depends. As always, follow the money.

Says the guy denigrating opposing science... while making a living from the natural gas industry.

natural gas is what pays my bills

 

[aborgman]

And again, I want to see one piece of evidence that shows "Definite negative impact" of natural gas.

Carl Weimer from the Pipeline Safety Trust:

"Transporting natural gas by pipeline is the safest way to move that energy. Still, every nine or 10 days on average someone ends up dead or in the hospital from these pipelines. More needs to be done for safety."

 

[NWB]

Of course, the temptation to veer off at a tangent and accuse politicians, oil companies or environmentalists of having an agenda is great, but I'm hoping we can keep it within TB rules.

 

[DwaynieAD]

who pays these scientists bills? love the TB dogma btw.

 

[slobake]

love the TB dogma.

Dogma?

 

[hbarcat]

Originally Posted by Dave the Bass View Post
If the earth is hotter, it's because the sun is more active, if it's cooler, the sun is less active.......and it's literally as simple as that

Guess there's no need for any of the research, turn out the lights all you climatologists, your life's work has been broken down by a thread on TB, we see your scam with our super bass playing powers. Nth order models? Mean squared error? Kalman filtering? Covariance, correlation, non-independent variables? Who needs all that when we have qualitative anecdotal opinion to substitute for science. Thanks for clearing all that up, the gov't should give you a medal for saving untold thousands of wasted research dollars.

This is an example of the two different "sides" both getting it wrong.

Side A believes it's all about the sun and human activity has nothing to do with it. This is what the fossil fuel industry wants everyone to believe.

Side B believes it's all about human activity and the sun has nothing to do with it. This is what the global warming crisis industry wants everyone to believe.

Those few people who even suggest the possibility that it might be a relatively equal combination of both are being ignored by the mass media - because their own agenda is to give a microphone to the extremes on both "sides", since it's more contentious and controversial.

 

[bkbirge]

This is an example of the two different "sides" both getting it wrong.

Side A believes it's all about the sun and human activity has nothing to do with it. This is what the fossil fuel industry wants everyone to believe.

Side B believes it's all about human activity and the sun has nothing to do with it. This is what the global warming crisis industry wants everyone to believe.

Those few people who even suggest the possibility that it might be a relatively equal combination of both are being ignored by the mass media - because their own agenda is to give a microphone to the extremes on both "sides", since it's more contentious and controversial.

Just taking a median position between two extremes is not automatically a more realistic position. Also, I never took the stance that the sun has nothing to do with it. My beef is with those that have no understanding of the complexities of the climatology models yet think they have the answers just by applying their idea of common sense. The anti intellectualism that is rampant around this or any controversial science based issue is ridiculous.

 

[slobake]

This is an example of the two different "sides" both getting it wrong.

Side A believes it's all about the sun and human activity has nothing to do with it. This is what the fossil fuel industry wants everyone to believe.

Side B believes it's all about human activity and the sun has nothing to do with it. This is what the global warming crisis industry wants everyone to believe.

Those few people who even suggest the possibility that it might be a relatively equal combination of both are being ignored by the mass media - because their own agenda is to give a microphone to the extremes on both "sides", since it's more contentious and controversial.

This is good. I believe we are getting somewhere. I am trying to figure out who the global warming crisis industry is and what is their motive? Profit? Power? Is it solar power and other alternative power providers trying to make inroads? Is it politicians pandering to the public to get elected? (We have to be careful with that one here. Politics is taboo for good reason). Other reasons, all of the above? Or is it people who are just genuinely concerned about our planet?

 

[Frank Tuesday]

Side B believes it's all about human activity and the sun has nothing to do with it. This is what the global warming crisis industry wants everyone to believe.

That isn't true. It is understood that there are non-human factors in the average global temperature. For one example, no one is denying that an increase in solar radiation will cause an increase in temperatures. The debate isn't that is it either A or B, the debate is how much of an effect is B having. One side says B has a negligible effect, and the other side says that B has a measurable effect.

A couple other things:

The change in terminology from "global warming" to "climate change" is due to the fact that the effects of "global warming" will cause many different changes in climate around the world, and not the same in every place. Flooding, increased rain, and even localized temperature cooling can all occur. The significant thing, is that we don't know what the results will be in general, much less in a specific location.

The "global cooling" of the '70s was not a theory. It was a conjecture. It is important to understand the difference between conjecture, hypothesis, theory and fact. Some scientist suggested that a possible outcome of pollution is that the particles would deflect solar radiation away from the earth's surface and atmosphere, which could cause a cooling. There was no significant cooling recorded during that time. Further, more scientific papers were written about global warming than global cooling in the '70s.

 

[Dave the Bass]

I just love it when people quote half of something I said.......my point in the first part of my original post was that we, as humans, do not have the ability to match the amount of energy that the Sun inputs into our planet on a daily basis.

 

[stew705]

When you are a scientist and all your peers are saying "global warming" and you consider if you say no way you might lose your job, most will go with global warming and its our fault.

 

[Unrepresented]

When you are a scientist and all your peers are saying "global warming" and you consider if you say no way you might lose your job, most will go with global warming and its our fault.

I too, love conspiracy theories.

 

[aborgman]

I just love it when people quote half of something I said.......my point in the first part of my original post was that we, as humans, do not have the ability to match the amount of energy that the Sun inputs into our planet on a daily basis.

We don't need to.

We may not even need to contribute a meaningful percentage to cause problems - it just depends on how "stable" equilibrium is.

 

[96tbird]

nope.

Did you make that one up yourself or hear it on Fox News?

Made it up. . the idea was that an ice age hasn't repeated yet. Say, that sharp spike up 11,000 years ago on the chart looks similar to the current one. A guy like me could really draw some ill informed half cocked conclusions from that! 8)

 

[96tbird]

This is good. I believe we are getting somewhere. I am trying to figure out who the global warming crisis industry is and what is their motive? Profit? Power? Is it solar power and other alternative power providers trying to make inroads? Is it politicians pandering to the public to get elected? (We have to be careful with that one here. Politics is taboo for good reason). Other reasons, all of the above? Or is it people who are just genuinely concerned about our planet?

Uh huh. I often wonder why the oil companies don't listen to the consumers and corner the alternative energy fields for their own future. I guess they still don't perceive enough of a groundswell of consumer sentiment. I believe it would be in their best interest to switch from being oil companies into energy companies and start their own development of alternatives for the future.

They have tried by investing in ethanol. The result is higher corn prices and therefore higher meat prices because corn feed is now crazy expensive so that isn't cutting it. They need to work on hydrogen as a fuel.

 

[Bert Slide]

HAHA! 20 years ago I had a band called Global Warming. We never made it out of the basement. It's just too damn hot to go outside!