What Do We Think About Climate Change

[Guillermo]

"....well reasoned and presented...." mmmmm
What about: "well cut and pasted" ?

Cheers.

[fasteddy106]

How silly of me, you are correct of course G.

[Guillermo]

But I have to recognize I'm not better than Boston, as I'm also a Queen of the cut and paste. None of us is a scientist and elaborate our own theory. We are just "guilty bystanders" as Thomas Merton put it. All we can do is search for information, analyze it and decide which one fills better our understanding of the issue.

Cheers.

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

.... None of us is a scientist and elaborate our own theory. We are just "guilty bystanders" as Thomas Merton put it. All we can do is search for information, analyze it and decide which one fills better our understanding of the issue.

Cheers.

I am afraid it does not even go that far.
When some people may have SOME understanding of climate, atmosphere, physics, and all the other science that involves this issue, I believe that most if not all people have chosen a side well before anything is demonstrated, or explained to them.

So when the choice is made, most people will go on Google to find support for their choice of side and not the other way around.

Since one could find support on the Internet for almost anything at all, it is pointless to have a match using such measuring sticks, since no one can really know for sure which info is free of errors, bias, slant, exaggeration or falsification.

So what each person is doing is defending his choice of side based purely on the reason that made that person choose such side.

And that is in my view the interesting part.

Take the warming side for example. Warmers like greens have a few things in common. That is they hate development and progress and they love the past.
A green and by elevation a warmer, sees the ideal world composed by no cities but small villages with dirt streets, gardens with chooks and goats, houses made out of mud bricks with batteries and paddle chargers on the straw roof, electric cars or no cars at all and work as little as possible whilst making bio diesel for the tractor. If in Australia probably living in Noosa, the Blue Mountain or Newtown and growing a few plants of pot for his own use.

Stereotype? Absolutely!

Now how to achieve this utopia? Lobbying the government into legislating to stop progress, no dams, no nuclear energy, ban cars, ban anything that is not retrograde and anti development.

The rational is that development is done by rich bastards who exploit the environment, and collude with the government to "degrade the future of our kids for their own selfish purposes"

Let me say that the above is not necessarily wrong. There has been plenty of examples of things we should be ashamed of.

However going back to the past does not guarantee us against human nature. Nor does supporting a ban on CO2 that besides being totally useless to achieve a change in climate that no one needs, is fundamentally a cap on progress. No CO2 means no use of fuel and until we find a competitive source of energy that means going back to the middle ages.
And I am not even addressing the fundamental mistake in thinking that warmer is "bad" whilst cooler is "good". Humans don't do good during cooler periods and thrive during warmer periods and so do plants and animals. I thought that would be rather easy to understand.

Assorted "greens" should consider moving to countries who do live still in the past. From the North pole, Mongolia, India, Africa, Russia there are plenty of utopic villages who have battery power and goats and chooks, yet as you may have guessed, green religion is not about a personal choice but it is about making a choice for others. Just like any other form of totalitarianism.

So all this religious fervour about "doing something" for the future of our kids, is translated in simple terms into taking action against those who they hate, that is people who are successful, who are independent, who ask only the government to let them work and progress rather than legislate them into mediocrity or oblivion.

Of course there are others who are very powerful and are exploiting this sentiments and using all the green utopia seekers for their own agenda. And the speculation as to what that may be I live to your own imagination...too many variables to debate.

[Boston]

sounds like some twisted corporate manifesto

dam tree huggers are trying to steal your freedom

[Marco1]

sounds like some twisted corporate manifesto

dam tree huggers are trying to steal your freedom

Ha ha B, you got it in one.

Corporation are evil, they twist the truth and collude with manifestos, green are misunderstood angels who are mocked with the term "tree hugger."

Your above statement has as much value as stating "Blue is the best colour"
You have expressed your view of the world in a nut shell and I must say that it is your prerogative to believe anything you fancy, including the above generalisation. The problem arises when someone wants to IMPOSE his views on others "for their own good" or "for the common good".

The belief in God from a Christian point of view was imposed with torture for centuries. Muslims have turned to the system the Inquisition used lately with gusto. Communism and "democracy" did similar things since...what? 1900?

The part I am interested in is the REASON a person chooses to believe something over something else. And like I said before it is just that, a personal choice, just like a choice of political party, local club, hobby, sport, etc.

Do you think it is a coincidence that those who vote conservative tend to have the highest income and those who vote labour/popular/socialist/green the lowest? Clearly each person's VALUES have the deciding factor in the person's choice.

If someone' thinks that money is the root of all evil, he will vote labour and his salary will reflect his opinion of money. He will have very little of it.

If someone on the other hand knows that poverty or the lack of money is the real root of evil, and that making money is fun, he will vote conservative.

Similarly, the new "green" choice is a branch off the "rich is evil-poor is virtuous" mantra. Progress, development, dams and canal dredging are all evil and done by rich evil people for their own selfish purposes, so "we" must halt progress at all cost.

The creation of the person's beliefs and values, starts very early some say before 10 and it is that set of values that determines where the person's allegiances will lay later in life. Unless someone makes a conscious effort to change his set of values with help from a professional, the real reason behind that person choice of party, credo, or love of one colour over another will be believed to be his "character" or "style" or other as intangible and as inaccurate reasons.

[fasteddy106]

Another screw up by "Real" scientists.............

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on.


Climate-sceptic MPs were quick to react. Conservative MP Helma Neppérus and Richard de Mos from the right-wing Freedom Party want the minister to explain to parliament how these figures were used to decide on national climate policy. "This may invalidate all claims that the last decades were the hottest ever," Mr De Mos said.


The incorrect figures which date back to 2007 were revealed on Wednesday by the weekly Vrij Nederland. The Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency told reporters that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) added together two figures supplied by the agency: the area of the Netherlands which is below sea-level and the area which is susceptible to flooding. In fact, these areas overlap, so the figures should not have been combined to produce the 55 percent quoted by the IPCC.

The discovery comes just a week after a prediction about glaciers in the Himalayas proved wrong. Rather than disappearing by 2035, as IPCC reports claim, the original research underlying the report predicted the mountain ice would last until 2350.


Urbanisation
Questions are being asked on a broader scale too about climate-change data. US researchers Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts, quoted in Dutch daily De Telegraaf, say the perceived global temperature rise may be an result of changes in the measuring methods.

There used to be 6,000 measuring posts, they say, but now there are just 1,500. A number of weather stations in colder areas like Siberia and the Arctic were dismantled, while the remaining stations were in more moderate zones. As a consequence, data from colder areas was no longer used in the calculations.


D'Aleo and Watts also point to discrepancies between terrestrial and satellite measurements. Satellite weather stations report that the temperature of the earth's atmosphere has remained stable, with a slight fall since 2001.

Earth-based weather stations report an increase in warmth which, according to the two Americans, reflects the process of urbanisation. Measuring posts that used to be in remote rural areas have gradually been surrounded by roads, buildings or industry, all of which produce heat.


Solar activity
Dutch researchers reporting to Minister Cramer on Wednesday said that global warming appears to be slower than had been assumed. In a brochure published by the Dutch Platform for Communication on Climate Change (PCCC) the academics say that sunspot activity was relatively low over the past decade and will continue to be low for the foreseeable future.

The lower the solar activity, the smaller the warming effect. According to the PCCC, the average temperature may even decrease by between 0.2 and 0.4 degrees, but they warn that this is just a slight dent in the much stronger rising trend. "The heat is still on," according to the PCCC report.

[fasteddy106]

More humor.............

[Marco1]

I love the vido posted earlier thta shows weather stations that use to be on farmland, now surrounded by car parks and one with a massive airconditioner right next to it> Can you imagine the distortion in that data?

What do you think will happen in the future if we get a cooling thrend that endargers poorer people who have not appropriate housing or heating? Will we be able to forget the CO2 nonsense in time to produce enough cheap energy?

Who was that "green criminal" who stated that the worst that can happen to human kind is to find a cheap source of energy?

[Boston]

ya claiming that the environmental movement is trying to limit ones freedom is a lot like saying that dam whale is eating all our fish

good call

thanks for setting us all straight

simple solution is to chop down all the trees
slaughter all the whales and remove those pesky wolves from the last few acres where they might be hiding
then we can all live in perfect bliss and freedom

Id like to take this moment to thank you and all your wisdom
how could I possibly have been so wrong

burn it folks
burn it all down fast
the world will be a better place a cinder
that way we wont have any more of these tree huggers trying to steel our God given rights to land liberty and ( God bless America ) freedom

HUUAAAA

way to debase it to a political agenda by the way
I suppose thats the only arena in which there could be even a pretense of a debate eh
they are stealing our freedom
stealing our freedom

who do you think you are kidding there mate

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by Marco1

If someone' thinks that money is the root of all evil, he will vote labour and his salary will reflect his opinion of money. He will have very little of it.

If someone on the other hand knows that poverty or the lack of money is the real root of evil, and that making money is fun, he will vote conservative.

Going out of topic here, but I strongly disagree. Maybe money is the driving factor in some societies, but it's not like that everywhere. There is a lot of people in the world with other values which they take into consideration firstly, and not all money-likers vote conservative and all dislikers vote leftists. Not even a majority, I think. As a matter of fact there are many catholics voting conservative who heartly think the pursuing of money is not a good thing, as an example, or leftists making themselves inmensily rich, as another.

All the best.

[Boston]

well said G

Ive pissed off my friends on the environmental side with my view of hunting and coexistence and Ive aggravated my ranching friends with my view on reintroduction.

the zoo was appalled at my take on there wasting 50 million on 7 elephants but I was all for the Yellowstone wolf project

I think its a balance and a lot of people prefer extremes

for some its important to deny all aspects of the rapid global climate change problem
others take issue with only the less well understood aspects of the concept
and are relatively open to the science that is largely settled
its a grab bag and labeling people is a big mistake

cheers
B

[Guillermo]

Coming back to topic, I have to say Prof. Komitov has been so kind to send to me the text of his already accepted for publication (but not yet published) new paper The "Sun–climate" relationship. III. Solar eruptions, north-south sunspot area asymmetry and earth climate

I'm not going to display its content here until the article has been published, but let me say it gives additional evidences about the fluxes of solar particles with energies higher than 100 MeV (the solar cosmic rays), being a very important component of the “Sun–climate" relationship.

Cheers.

[Boston]

should be interesting
I posted the following graph earlier but it might have gone unnoticed within all the banter

the top bar shows the relationship of solar radiation with other parameters like temp and co2 and methane



once you feel comfortable posting the professors information
please do

cheers
B

ps
Jim is strangely quiet these days
everything ok there Jimbo

[Marco1]

Originally Posted by Boston

ya claiming that the environmental movement is trying to limit ones freedom is a lot like saying that dam whale is eating all our fish

You are misquoting me and putting words in my mouth at the same time.

I say that those who join environmental movements and the warmers side of the argument in this thread, do so because of their preconceived view of the world and not because of any after the fact scientific research or conviction.

Their values, acquired early in life, fall in line with attacking progress and development and personal success at the same time and propose going back to the past as a solution. If possible back to the middle ages. Like any other tyrannical movement, their views must be imposed on others for their own good and for the good of the majority. THe GW movement offers this and so they jump on the bandwagon.

I say there is nothing good about the past and I also say, review your values because they are driving your life without you realising it.

The difference between global warming preachers and the rest, is that GW supporters want to IMPOSE sanctions and taxes that clearly will chastise any form of development and even existing industries as they are now. Most GW supporters know that the science behind it is bogus, yet they still push for it because of all the other "benefits" they see in it. The so called benefits are a mandate to impose social engineering and attacks on personal success the likes Stalin or Castro could only dream about.

It is important always to know what drives us and denying it outright does not really help. If you like the blue colour there is a reason buried in your subconscious linked to a set of values you have acquired at some stage. That particular value is unlikely to be a handicap ever, since it is universally accepted that colour preferences is a personal choice and will never become a social imposition. There are other values who are as pervasive as the liking of a colour over another but that are so strong to determine our very future.

One of them is the idea that rich and money is wrong and evil, ad that poor is always good and virtuous. The consequences of such negative anti-value is so damaging that most people when confronted about it, tend to deny it vehemently, and try to legitimate it with philosophical decorations.

The fact remains that if someone is convinced that there is something wrong about money, and that it is dirty, and other things should take priority, that is precisely what will happen and lack of money will be the main event in the person life. This would be ok if it remained at personal level but unfortunately what happens is that it goes out as hate towards "those rich bastard who only think about money" and so we get the polarisation we can see in all walks of life.

This is a complex issue and worth a debate on it's own, yet I bring it up only to show that just as the "anti-value" of money is dirty, the anti-value rich is evil drives those who choose to support the global warming theory only because it suits their preconceived notions and not because they have any insight into the science.