Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
NCCommish

The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism

Recommended Posts

It's hilarious because you have been one of the biggest skeptics of the effects of man made climate change on this board. You have ripped guys like Hansen at every opportunity even going so far as to accuse them of fraud. Now that Hansen has argued that the Paris meeting didn't go far enough you're quick to grab onto that, because it furthers your proposition that it's all a big joke and we shouldn't be doing anything. You don't care who the source is that allows you to make the argument so long as you get to make it. That's why.

Edited by timschochet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/un-climate-conference/us-town-rejects-solar-farm-after-residents-say-it-would-suck-up-the-sunlight-20151213-glmqa6.html

The good burghers of Woodland, North Carolina, have successfully torpedoed plans for a solar farm, arguing the panels would suck up all the sun's energy, cause cancer and drive young people out of town.

:lmao:

No one wants to live next to a power plant, what makes a solar farm different?

A lot. But that's not the point. This is about the brilliance of their rationale.

In all fairness, the town already had already accepted three other solar farms prior to this one coming to vote. There are definitely some loons who are a few sandwiches short of a picnic speaking out at the town council meetings. I think some of their comments may be being taken out of context, but still goofy nonetheless. The fact that the town isn't benefiting from these solar farms may also be part of the equation.

The town would not benefit from the solar farms because they are not located within the town limits, but only in the extraterritorial sections.

The only funding the town would get is about $7,000 per year to train the fire department in case something goes wrong.

.

.

.

The power generated would go directly into the electrical grid and would not reduce Woodland’s power bills.

http://www.roanoke-chowannewsherald.com/2015/12/08/woodland-rejects-solar-farm/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hilarious because you have been one of the biggest skeptics of the effects of man made climate change on this board. You have ripped guys like Hansen at every opportunity even going so far as to accuse them of fraud. Now that Hansen has argued that the Paris meeting didn't go far enough you're quick to grab onto that, because it furthers your proposition that it's all a big joke and we shouldn't be doing anything. You don't care who the source is that allows you to make the argument so long as you get to make it. That's why.

Irony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hilarious because you have been one of the biggest skeptics of the effects of man made climate change on this board. You have ripped guys like Hansen at every opportunity even going so far as to accuse them of fraud. Now that Hansen has argued that the Paris meeting didn't go far enough you're quick to grab onto that, because it furthers your proposition that it's all a big joke and we shouldn't be doing anything. You don't care who the source is that allows you to make the argument so long as you get to make it. That's why.

Nothing ironic about it at all. I always listen to both sides and address the pros and cons. You are far more one-sided on issues than I am. Between Hansen and Mann (the guy's article you posted), Hansen is the more credible. Mann was behind the infamous Hockey Stick graph, a lot of the more controversial emails, and was very loose with maintaining the temperature records which were a disaster. Really a bad scientist who is more into the political games. Hansen is an activist, but is far more honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never say that we may not have some effect on the global warming. And I do believe that there is global warming. But it is my belief that there is no "perfect temperature." The Earth's temp will always fluctuate. It always has. Do humans have some effect on it? Possibly. But I believe that there are a ton of other factors, as well. And those factors have been going on for millions of years, yet the Earth has survived.

Mother Nature has a way of healing itself. I could be completely wrong on this, but this is just where I stand right now.

This is correct.

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

Just how hot is the temperature supposed to get? Short of turning Earth into a second Venus, what kind of likely-to-happen temperature change will humans be unable to adapt to?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

Just how hot is the temperature supposed to get? Short of turning Earth into a second Venus, what kind of likely-to-happen temperature change will humans be unable to adapt to?

It's not so much our ability to adapt to living in hot places. We've proven we can do that. It's more things like the ability of marine life we eat to adapt, of the plants we eat to adapt. And then yes, there's the flooding of coastal areas and mass displacement of millions of humans, competition for resources, the spread of diseases and invasive species and non-native bacteria and a thousand other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

Just how hot is the temperature supposed to get? Short of turning Earth into a second Venus, what kind of likely-to-happen temperature change will humans be unable to adapt to?

It's not necessarily that humans won't be able to adapt to the temperature change, it's more that our major cities will be under water and there will be huge food shortages with all the animal and plant life that doesn't survive.

We live in an ecosystem with a delicate balance. When one factor is out of whack, it throws everything else off too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The environment is non-negotiable and we are extremely careful about it,” Anil Swarup, the top bureaucrat in the coal ministry, told Reuters. “(But) our dependence on coal will continue. There are no other alternatives available.”

While India has plans to add 30 times more solar-powered generation capacity by 2022, there were limitations to clean energy and coal would remain the most efficient energy source for decades, he said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

Just how hot is the temperature supposed to get? Short of turning Earth into a second Venus, what kind of likely-to-happen temperature change will humans be unable to adapt to?

It's not necessarily that humans won't be able to adapt to the temperature change, it's more that our major cities will be under water and there will be huge food shortages with all the animal and plant life that doesn't survive.

We live in an ecosystem with a delicate balance. When one factor is out of whack, it throws everything else off too.

All the more reason to continue developing technologies for genetically modifying and engineering food resources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The environment is non-negotiable and we are extremely careful about it,” Anil Swarup, the top bureaucrat in the coal ministry, told Reuters. “(But) our dependence on coal will continue. There are no other alternatives available.”

While India has plans to add 30 times more solar-powered generation capacity by 2022, there were limitations to clean energy and coal would remain the most efficient energy source for decades, he said.

I'm not sure if you are trying to make a point....they were planning to double coal before the talks

Solar makes sense for India...of course, producing the panels will produce some carbon emissions, as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

Just how hot is the temperature supposed to get? Short of turning Earth into a second Venus, what kind of likely-to-happen temperature change will humans be unable to adapt to?

It's not necessarily that humans won't be able to adapt to the temperature change, it's more that our major cities will be under water and there will be huge food shortages with all the animal and plant life that doesn't survive.

We live in an ecosystem with a delicate balance. When one factor is out of whack, it throws everything else off too.

All the more reason to continue developing technologies for genetically modifying and engineering food resources.

...or we could stop feeding grain to cows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The environment is non-negotiable and we are extremely careful about it,” Anil Swarup, the top bureaucrat in the coal ministry, told Reuters. “(But) our dependence on coal will continue. There are no other alternatives available.”

While India has plans to add 30 times more solar-powered generation capacity by 2022, there were limitations to clean energy and coal would remain the most efficient energy source for decades, he said.

That's all nice and good and all, but when you're starting at .03% solar...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would never say that we may not have some effect on the global warming. And I do believe that there is global warming. But it is my belief that there is no "perfect temperature." The Earth's temp will always fluctuate. It always has. Do humans have some effect on it? Possibly. But I believe that there are a ton of other factors, as well. And those factors have been going on for millions of years, yet the Earth has survived.

Mother Nature has a way of healing itself. I could be completely wrong on this, but this is just where I stand right now.

This is correct.

Unfortunately for us while the Earth will be just fine, humans will no longer be able to live on it.

:lmao:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A scathing article has been published detailing how the NOAA data has been corrupted to show much worse warming than is really happening with their surface temperature data sets. Seems the NOAA corrected their temperature data for things like what time of day the data was taken, but somehow forgot to take into account urbanization around their stations and the unrealistic warming it was showing. On top of this, when they homogenized the data and pulled the data from the good stations up (not the other way around).

The data from the non-corrupt sites matches the satellite data, which has shown no significant warming for the last 2 decades.

I work in a profession where the quality of the data produced is everything. For such a huge variable (one that they knew about as it has been discussed for years) to be ignored borders on willful fraud, if this article is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yale's climate change institute to close in June.  I guess it's not fashionable anymore... :lmao:

From the American Thinker blog post about it:
 

Quote

 

Pachauri has been a controversial figure for quite some time, based on unproven allegations of financial self-enrichment and allegations of sexual misbehavior.  His personal troubles no doubt have diminished his moral authority as a champion save-the-world advocate (and, oddly enough, parallel the sexual misconduct charges against the pre-eminent warmist profiteer, Al Gore), but a scandal-tainted founding director ordinarily would not be enough to kill a formerly well funded institute at a world-famous research university.  In order to accomplish that, you have to starve it (and the university backing it) of funding.

And that is what must be behind the announcement of the demise of YCEI.  Donors have moved on to more trendy opportunities to add to their personal prestige.  It all begins when, at a cocktail reception or fancy dinner, people begin to ask about the failure of the globe to warm for the last 19 years, and you get stuck in an awkward conversation about how it was necessary to “adjust” the data in order to continue to claim that warming is a problem.  That sort of thing is donor poison.

 

:lmao: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey look. We discovered the guy who reads the American Thinker's blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've kind of left this thread alone because I thought even the most adamant deniers had come to understand that they were being played for fools by the fossil fuel industry - just like the tobacco industry continued to claim smoking wasn't hazardous to smokers' health for decades after they actually knew the truth. But.... here's some quick end of 2015 info from NASA. Please be sure to tell me how/why NASA is lying for its own personal gain.
 

Quote

 

Earth’s 2015 surface temperatures were the warmest since modern record keeping began in 1880, according to independent analyses by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Globally-averaged temperatures in 2015 shattered the previous mark set in 2014 by 0.23 degrees Fahrenheit (0.13 Celsius). Only once before, in 1998, has the new record been greater than the old record by this much.

The 2015 temperatures continue a long-term warming trend, according to analyses by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York (GISTEMP). NOAA scientists concur with the finding that 2015 was the warmest year on record based on separate, independent analyses of the data. ...

The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1.0 degree Celsius) since the late-19th century, a change largely driven by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.

Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 15 of the 16 warmest years on record occurring since 2001. Last year was the first time the global average temperatures were 1 degree Celsius or more above the 1880-1899 average.

 

And here's the worst part. January 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded - meaning the difference between Jan 2016's average temp and the historical January temp was the greatest difference ever recorded. But that record didn't last long, as February was even hotter.

Seriously, at this point, you can deny manmade climate change if you like, but doing so makes you the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther. Discussions on the subject aren't actually about whether or not climate change is happening, they're about identifying who the most gullible people are.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The_Man said:

I've kind of left this thread alone because I thought even the most adamant deniers had come to understand that they were being played for fools by the fossil fuel industry - just like the tobacco industry continued to claim smoking wasn't hazardous to smokers' health for decades after they actually knew the truth. But.... here's some quick end of 2015 info from NASA. Please be sure to tell me how/why NASA is lying for its own personal gain.
 

And here's the worst part. January 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded - meaning the difference between Jan 2016's average temp and the historical January temp was the greatest difference ever recorded. But that record didn't last long, as February was even hotter.

Seriously, at this point, you can deny manmade climate change if you like, but doing so makes you the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther. Discussions on the subject aren't actually about whether or not climate change is happening, they're about identifying who the most gullible people are.

Your last paragraph doesn't follow from your first two. Your first two paragraphs show (dramatic) evidence that the earth is warming.  They don't show any evidence of the cause.  In your last paragraph, you then add "manmade", despite having shown no evidence for it.

Note, I'm not arguing that the warming isn't partially attributable to human actions, just pointing out that your logic in this particular post is faulty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in Global Warming, but I think we should spend more on preparation and less on prevention.

Anyway, the constant fiddling with historical temperatures to bring things back to where everyone thinks they should be is troublesome.  I can see where they would need to make adjustments and normalize the data, but constantly going back and "adjusting" the measured temperatures means you can come up with whatever trend you want.

Edited by jonessed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll probably just tell my kids not to have kids and snuff out my line before they go full on Soylent Green.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sabertooth said:

I'll probably just tell my kids not to have kids and snuff out my line before they go full on Soylent Green.  

Pretty sure that is how Obama care will be funded in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The_Man said:

I've kind of left this thread alone because I thought even the most adamant deniers had come to understand that they were being played for fools by the fossil fuel industry - just like the tobacco industry continued to claim smoking wasn't hazardous to smokers' health for decades after they actually knew the truth. But.... here's some quick end of 2015 info from NASA. Please be sure to tell me how/why NASA is lying for its own personal gain.
 

And here's the worst part. January 2016 was the hottest month ever recorded - meaning the difference between Jan 2016's average temp and the historical January temp was the greatest difference ever recorded. But that record didn't last long, as February was even hotter.

Seriously, at this point, you can deny manmade climate change if you like, but doing so makes you the intellectual equivalent of a flat-earther. Discussions on the subject aren't actually about whether or not climate change is happening, they're about identifying who the most gullible people are.

I thought you left because your ridiculout analogies, proposterous strawmen and broken logic did not hold up to scruntiny.  If not, that should have been the reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I thought you left because your ridiculout analogies, proposterous strawmen and broken logic did not hold up to scruntiny.  If not, that should have been the reason.

Yep, NASA and me.

They're faking climate change now just like they faked those pictures of a round earth from the fake moon landing.

Also, your previous post misspelled four of the 13 words from "ridiculout" through "scruntiny."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The_Man said:

Yep, NASA and me.

They're faking climate change now just like they faked those pictures of a round earth from the fake moon landing.

Also, your previous post misspelled four of the 13 words from "ridiculout" through "scruntiny."

There you go again.  No one said anything about faking climate change.  You just throw out strawman after strawman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jon_mx said:

There you go again.  No one said anything about faking climate change.  You just throw out strawman after strawman.

I don't think you know what strawman means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonydead said:

I don't think you know what strawman means.

I take it to mean disproving an arguement which hasn't been made to avoid the real points.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

I take it to mean disproving an arguement which hasn't been made to avoid the real points.  

Almost, but none the less, I counted 5 times on this page alone where data was claimed to be manipulated, corrected temperatures and people accused of fraud in order to "fake" climate change.  Including yourself in mention of the Hockey Graph.  I imagine it difficult to be a denier without calling the scientists liars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tonydead said:

Almost, but none the less, I counted 5 times on this page alone where data was claimed to be manipulated, corrected temperatures and people accused of fraud in order to "fake" climate change.  Including yourself in mention of the Hockey Graph.  I imagine it difficult to be a denier without calling the scientists liars.

The concensus has backed away from the Hockey Stick graph a long time ago.  There has been a lot a manipulating and changing data over the last few years to attempt to keep the trend upward.  They have been very open about it, changing their methods of calculations just from a few years ago so the data does not look so flat.  None of that denies that there has been some global warming which has occured since the 1890's.  I think the IPCC leadership is full of people who care more about the politics than the science, but the data is real. That is a much different one than making an arguement that there has been no climate change as The Man is stating. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jonessed said:

I believe in Global Warming, but I think we should spend more on preparation and less on prevention.

Agreed. Rolling back human use of technology to pre-1900 levels is a non-starter**. The only real solution, very broadly speaking, is to engineer our way out it -- basically, to either (a) "terraform" a hotter Earth down to a less-hot Earth or (b) to make it so that humanity (and the flora/fauna on which we depend) can live with the hotter temperatures.

 

** not been specifically proposed, but it makes the point that we're not collectively willing to give up our cars, HVAC, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're seriously disputing that people deny global warming?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jon, its argument not arguement. 

Didnt see most of the debate last night, but in the other ten Republican debates there hasn't been a single question on this subject. I find that almost criminal. Make the candidates say whether or not they think climate change is real and if so what they propose to do about it. If the answer is nothing let them say that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pantagrapher said:

You're seriously disputing that people deny global warming?

I am disputing it has been a main theme in this thread.  I am sure there are people who deny there has been any warming and it is probably fair to call those people deniers.  But the tactic is to create the 'denier' lable and cast it at everyone who doesn't drink the IPCC Koolaid of catestrophic manmade climate change which has these pulled out of their ### trigger points which spells doom for the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, timschochet said:

jon, its argument not arguement. 

Didnt see most of the debate last night, but in the other ten Republican debates there hasn't been a single question on this subject. I find that almost criminal. Make the candidates say whether or not they think climate change is real and if so what they propose to do about it. If the answer is nothing let them say that. 

I think it is criminal that neither party is seriously addressing the budget deficits and our debt except for some lip service rhetoric.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jon_mx said:

I think it is criminal that neither party is seriously addressing the budget deficits and our debt except for some lip service rhetoric.  

Agreed. But at least both sides get questions about that- not enough but at least a few. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

You're seriously disputing that people deny global warming?

Here is the quote that motivated me to post the data about 2015 and the last two months:

Quote

people begin to ask about the failure of the globe to warm for the last 19 years, and you get stuck in an awkward conversation about how it was necessary to “adjust” the data in order to continue to claim that warming is a problem.

In one sentence, the claim is made that the planet hasn't warmed for the last 19 years, and the claim is made that data must be faked to demonstrate global warming. That reads like global warming denial to me.

But I shouldn't have let myself get pulled in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2015 at 11:55 AM, Doug B said:

Just how hot is the temperature supposed to get? Short of turning Earth into a second Venus, what kind of likely-to-happen temperature change will humans be unable to adapt to?

We will all be long dead by the time anything like that happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, The_Man said:

Here is the quote that motivated me to post the data about 2015 and the last two months:

In one sentence, the claim is made that the planet hasn't warmed for the last 19 years, and the claim is made that data must be faked to demonstrate global warming. That reads like global warming denial to me.

But I shouldn't have let myself get pulled in.

There is legitimate scientific debate including numerous scientific published papers about the warming trend over the last 19 years or so and there have been adjustments to the data which alters the data to make more of an upward trend.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, lod01 said:

Sweet. I'll have ocean front property someday.

You'll have long since have been murdered by roving bands of displaced refugees and the newly homeless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthropogenic carbon release rate unprecedented during the past 66 million years

Quote

We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.