Climate Change: Which Ever side is Wrong Will Severely Hurt society.

Whichever side is wrong? Science already has a consensus that Man Made Global Warming is real. Just like Gravity and Evolution and electricity and on and on and on. There is only one side, unless you are like Ken Hamm and answers in Genesis and disregard all science. Don't be that guy.

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that every scientist and university in the world is wrong and a few nuts are right. Besides Carbon Taxes there is no downside.

-More renewable clean energy
-Less air pollution
-More trees
-Less deforestation.
-More recycling
-better gas mileage cars
-Less dependence on foreign oil
-Better more innovative batteries, solar cells, electric cars, and charging stations
-More options to live off the grid with your own solar, wind powered system in your house
-More public transportation
-More bike lanes
-tougher penalties on corporate polluters
-Cheaper electricity
-cheaper electric cars/motorcycles and solar power kits for your house
-less smog
-less asthma
-Innovative ways to grow crops during a drought(hopefully without any GMO crap)


the list goes on and on. There is no downside except for the inevitable crooked politician and corporation who uses this for gain. I've got news for you though. Those crooked politicians and corporations are already screwing us. It will just be in a different way.

a reply to: xuenchen

The free market could do it.

In the United States, almost every home or business west of the Missouri River and over 4000' elevation or desert could be run completely on solar. About 90% of the west is over 4000' high or desert. East of the Missouri River could be run on cellulosic alcohols, provided by a lot of cheap acid coming from the solar powered west. This relationship could be adapted the other continents as well.

In a free market, this state of energy would happen because of the lay of the land and climate, not because of the ruler's decree.

Also, right now it is illegal to sell your neighbor energy.

A business that has enough solar power to refine metal can't sell its surplus electricity to its neighbors. So there is minimal incentive to make energy outside of the utility monopolies.

Monopolies are made by regulations and laws.

a reply to: xuenchen

I don't have a master plan or a solution to all the problems. If I had the power and authority I would definitely take steps to try and figure one out though. In my opinion we need to be able to recognize the problem first. If we just keep arguing in circles whether the problem exists or not we'll never find any solutions. I think we're making improvements in some areas and completely failing in others.

A major reason we can not afford many of the solutions is because we spend too much money on the "defense budget". I would redirect those resources to engineer and install newer and better technologies.

I think we need comprehensive programs to replant trees. I think we need to change to materials we use for building homes. Hemp has been proven to be a wonderful, extremely versatile, durable, eco-friendly and sustainable resource for the housing industry. Hemp can also be used to make oil and fuel.

I think roads should be built with the new technologies available. There is a new project in development that places solar panels directly in the roads. There is also new kinds of solar paint that can be used.

I think we need to use more reflective materials on the roofs of our houses and roads. This one solution alone would reduce the amount heat that gets trapped in our atmosphere.

I think we need to improve our standards for the amount of MPG's new cars get. No new car sold should get less than 35 mpg's.

I think we in the Industrialized World need to make some sacrifices and reduce our consumption levels.

We need to reduce our levels of waste, do we really need a product we buy to be packaged in styrofoam, boxed in cardboard and then wrapped in plastic and after we buy it we put it in another plastic bag to carry it home?

We need to develop better means of public transportation. Perhaps limiting the supply of items being shipped onto store shelves. We need more local farms that don't rely on pesticides.

I could keep going, but it requires a lot of change in the way we think.

I'm sure at some point even more extreme measures may need to be taken.

my opinion; one side could hurt society the other side could lead to the end of society. imo

The side that's wrong, the collectivist AGW is obvious side, will probably win. That will set human society back -- maybe for generations, possibly forever.

Mind control through education and media plus coercion for specific problems can't be countered in our lifetimes.

I have a high opinion of human potential but a low opinion of its present awareness.

I was surprised to see the Berlin wall come down though.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Also, right now it is illegal to sell your neighbor energy.

A business that has enough solar power to refine metal can't sell its surplus electricity to its neighbors. So there is minimal incentive to make energy outside of the utility monopolies.

Monopolies are made by regulations and laws.

Shhh...

Don't tell that to my friends in Montana (or rather don't tell the police in Montana)

a reply to: ArtemisE

The Democrats are lying. The arctic ice expanded this year and we experience record break cold temperature. We are going through global cooling.

CA has always been a desert in the south so its no surprise of a drought. We always had a dought and it was much hotter when I was a kid 25 years ago

Democrats and some Republicans are bankrolled by multinational corporations that sit offshore and tax exempted. They are trying to shut down the resources in America through the guise of global warming in order for America to be dependent on these foreign energy corporations etc. George Soros is a major player he invest in billions on foreign energy companies.

That's basically the gist of their agenda. It's really easy to figure it out. Just watch clips of Soros talking about it.

a reply to: amfirst1

So...
It's only Democrats that believe in climate change?

Are 95 (or 97, can't remember) % of scientists on the Democrat's payroll worldwide??

originally posted by: amfirst1
a reply to: ArtemisE

The Democrats are lying. The arctic ice expanded this year and we experience record break cold temperature. We are going through global cooling.

CA has always been a desert in the south so its no surprise of a drought. We always had a dought and it was much hotter when I was a kid 25 years ago

Democrats and some Republicans are bankrolled by multinational corporations that sit offshore and tax exempted. They are trying to shut down the resources in America through the guise of global warming in order for America to be dependent on these foreign energy corporations etc. George Soros is a major player he invest in billions on foreign energy companies.

That's basically the gist of their agenda. It's really easy to figure it out. Just watch clips of Soros talking about it.

I'm not a democrat and nobody has paid me, yet! What you are saying though, is that millions of people are on Soro's payroll and in on the biggest conspiracy that ever happened. Ever! And none of them have said a word about it! Not one person! Wow!

originally posted by: amazing
Whichever side is wrong? Science already has a consensus that Man Made Global Warming is real. Just like Gravity and Evolution and electricity and on and on and on. There is only one side, unless you are like Ken Hamm and answers in Genesis and disregard all science. Don't be that guy.

Now, just for the sake of argument, let's pretend that every scientist and university in the world is wrong and a few nuts are right . . .

It is really cute that you think everyone, or even a majority of those in the sciences has actually reviewed the evidence and data from the IPCC and other organizations.

Many folks in the sciences have not learned the differential equations or vector calculus to be able to interpret the extremely limited modeling available to the public. Of those that have many have not learned the statistical analysis to properly analyze data that has been included or tossed out.

Also most climate scientists have only focused on the physics of optics and have not actually taken courses in the physics of electromagnetism which is one of the primary forces of chemistry. Further they generally do not have experience with the physics of heat wave transfer. Don't even get me started on the vector field modeling I ahve come across . . . ugh such hack jobs of laminas modeling topographical heat transfers often makes me want to rip out my eyes or hire them a math tutor so they can learn the beauty of flux and divergence to simplify the mess they made.

Most scientists know nothing about climate science, so saying that all of science is in consensus is extremely disingenuous.

Also you really should not include evolution in your pro-AGW argument as it has ZERO mathematical models based on physics and mathematics.

But it was pretty good rhetoric comparing anyone questioning the party line to creationists, real classy.

Maybe you should go and start reading through the actual academic work that has been published and link to all the data and models which have been released to the public without any data being redacted?

You would certainly come across as much more enlightened on the issue.

-FBB

/EDIT

I should also note that in several journals I have noticed that the models have assumed continuity or convergence of the data or used "statistical analysis" to exclude those data points which negate such claims . . . please leave it to the engineers to operate within accepted tolerances.

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

But you just said, basically that these scientists are taking their information from the IPCC? What about all the other independent studies-hundreds of them with no connection to the IPCC? You also said:

"...That Many folks in the sciences have not learned the differential equations or vector calculus to be able to interpret the extremely limited modeling available to the public. Of those that have many have not learned the statistical analysis to properly analyze data that has been included or tossed out. Also most climate scientists have only focused on the physics of optics and have not actually taken courses in the physics of electromagnetism..."

You've basically said there that all of the climate data research going back decades is flawed because they don't know what to look for and know as much about science as you do.

Got it. I'm sure they could learn a lot from you.

And yes I am pretty cute...so my wife keeps telling me, But, there is scientific consensus on this and I although different areas of expertise I think Man Made Global Warming is as sure a thing as evolution or the theory of Gravity.

Cheers!

We have enough geothermal energy in this country to run it many times over. The cost associated with geothermal is on par or as many studies have shown less than that of coal.

There are zero emissions with geothermal yet the coal industry has people thinking they can build clean coal plants. There are 2 clean coal plants up and running and they are expensive just as expensive as nuclear and it is not even certain if the co2 pumped into the ground will stay there.

We could still have cheap electric maybe even cheaper electric and we could do it without polluting with co2 but at some point people will need to demand the change because you bet your arse the coal companies are not going to willingly change.

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

But you just said, basically that these scientists are taking their information from the IPCC? What about all the other independent studies-hundreds of them with no connection to the IPCC? You also said:

"...That Many folks in the sciences have not learned the differential equations or vector calculus to be able to interpret the extremely limited modeling available to the public. Of those that have many have not learned the statistical analysis to properly analyze data that has been included or tossed out. Also most climate scientists have only focused on the physics of optics and have not actually taken courses in the physics of electromagnetism..."

You've basically said there that all of the climate data research going back decades is flawed because they don't know what to look for and know as much about science as you do.

Got it. I'm sure they could learn a lot from you.

And yes I am pretty cute...so my wife keeps telling me, But, there is scientific consensus on this and I although different areas of expertise I think Man Made Global Warming is as sure a thing as evolution or the theory of Gravity.

Cheers!

No . . . I said a lot of the "science" that you claim is in consensus knows nothing about the issue and so claiming consensus as some sort of proof is ignorant. The data is most likely not flawed as data implies raw observations while interpretive methods indeed have flaws. For example most folks do not understand how variable the ice core samples can really be.

Obviously it makes you very uncomfortable to actually discuss science, is that why you resort to calling yourself cute and referencing your family life?

-FBB

a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

Here is a location for accessing the data the models have made available; www.ipcc-data.org...

More info;
www.forbes.com...

Two leading experts on forecasting and one on the physics of climate joined forces to investigate IPCC modeling procedures and conclusions. They are Dr. Kesten Green, Professor J. Scott Armstrong, and Dr. Willie Soon. What they found was truly shocking: the modeling procedures that the IPCC relies upon to produce their scary climate change scenarios ignore most principles of scientific forecasting.

Kesten Green, based at the University of South Australia in Adelaide, has published pioneering articles on forecasting methods and is co-director of a major website on forecasting methods, www.ForecastingPrinciples.com. Scott Armstrong teaches at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia and is a founder of the two major journals on forecasting methods, editor of the Principles of Forecasting handbook, and the world’s most highly cited author on forecasting methods. Willie Soon is a solar physicist who has published many important empirical papers on the causes of climate changes.

I have asked Kesten to discuss their findings.

Kesten, through your joint investigations into this matter I understand that you found that the modeling procedures the IPCC uses to create their of climate change projections violated 72 of 89 relevant forecasting principles. Should we be concerned that an extraordinarily well-funded international agency reporting to governments has followed less than 20 percent of what could be thought of as scientific procedures?

. . .

So how do the long-range forecasts you obtained compare with the scenarios that the IPCC promotes to policymakers and the media?

First we followed forecasting principles to choose the most appropriate forecasting method. We then applied it to predict global mean temperatures since 1850 (roughly the start of the Industrial Revolution), as measured by the same data that the IPCC used. To choose a method, we examined the state of knowledge and available empirical data.

In this application we concluded that the “no-trend” model is the proper method to use. Our conclusion is based upon a substantial body of research that found complex models do not work well compared to simple models in complex and uncertain situations. This is the case here where the climate is so complex and insufficiently understood that any net effect of human emissions on global temperatures cannot be identified.

By contrast, the IPCC relies upon complicated computer models to represent their assumption that the relatively small human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere will cause dangerous global warming. And because the models are so complex, the modelers need to include numerous assumptions. Many mainstream scientists question those assumptions.

Not surprisingly, given that they were the product of scientific forecasting principles, our no-trend forecasts were much more accurate than the IPCC’s warming scenario temperatures over the period of exponentially increasing CO2 emissions from 1850.

Science FTW? Hmmmmmm, weird that the authority on modeling and forecasting is calling BS on the IPCC scenarios isn't it?

And for some balance on the matter;

Why trust climate models? It’s a matter of simple science
How climate scientists test, test again, and use their simulation tools.
arstechnica.com...

The above link outlines a general procedure and guideline for developing and implementing models.

If you think it takes millions of people in on a conspiracy to tweak data to produce results in your favor, think again. It has happened in the past in areas like acid baths for stem cells. Many people are compartmentalized or experience cognitive dissonance due to the official funding/ atmosphere. Serious scrutiny of the IPCC scenarios (NOT FORECASTS) is inhibited due to politics.

Enjoy.

-FBB


/EDIT
Here is a good paper from TBP (en.wikipedia.org...) that actually supports the CC theory in general but goes into further detail concerning how models are challenged and more importantly by who. Like the example provided above the folks are associated with the heartland institute and many of their detractors are involved with political environmentalist groups funded by similar big businesses.

www.tbp.org...

Also scenarios are NOT forecasts and it is crazy how definitive folks are trying to claim the modeling is.

a reply to: amazing

Damn you beat me to it. If climate change is wrong it's not the dems that are lying. It's the science community making it up. The dems are just trying to profit off them. I don't know how the right wing talking heads have convinced y'all the left are nazis. It really is laughable.

originally posted by: ArtemisE
a reply to: amazing

Damn you beat me to it. If climate change is wrong it's not the dems that are lying. It's the science community making it up. The dems are just trying to profit off them. I don't know how the right wing talking heads have convinced y'all the left are nazis. It really is laughable.

At this point I can't tell if your above is a farce or truly meant.

Former, nice one.

Latter, Holy Mother Sister That Rides Unicycles, can you read and perform Independent critical thinking based off of facts rather than FOX News talking points, or Who "that guy" on the corner, or a kvetching mother tells you??

Sorry for being a bit .. whatever you want to call it by your perception.
Just speaking my mind as I can only assume ( by history and appearance) you are...IDFK

figgin boring.

u idiots want to change what?

make my place less hot? some other place less cold?

can you do that?

i'd gladly pay to keep march all year round.

dry and cool.

i'm sorry mods, people are pretty stupid.


you people must be some sort of christians.

or islamics. who cares. you BELIEVE!!!

a reply to: tsingtao

Wanting a healthier world for grandchildren or great grandchildren is...

u idiots

pretty stupid.

????
Alright then man/lady consume all you can.


Hell, you'll be dead, right? Who cares about who comes next, right?

up straight...

climatology is a soft science......its not like physics..engineering..medical....etc...etc....etc.
its like an arts degree....its an easy degree.....for softhands....
a climatologist is a glorified weather person....pure and simple...

I am not against all of science if I'm against some weather fashionista's so called educated opinion.... not every one who goes to university is educated.....
I do not deny that as ...a so called 1st world people..... we s@#t in our own nests.....a fine example to the rest of the world...
we are a ....do as I say...not do as I do culture......
we are hypocrites.....

if an engineer/physicist says run...one should......
but if a climatologist.....or a politician...or an economist....says jump then I should jump....why,,,who are they???????

according to the softhands..... if we are responsible for the planet warming...... then......we can cool it......

do you want to let some soft hands try and cool the planet????????......
lets get real...

I live in Australia....our summers are always hot....sometimes bad....sometimes not.....that's the natural way....we live with it.
I live besides the Pacific Ocean....and it ain't rising ....

enjoy the weather....its stimulating.....more than rapp music....