Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by redhawk View Post
    Actually, about 6 months ago there was an article which stated that "many of the global warming naysayers now admit that it does exist and that there is a possibility that it is caused by human activity". For the die hards to admit that means that science has made a convincing case and that they are now doing some face saving and still trying to maintain the bottom line.

    Here's a viewpoint. If any open minded person who had no opinion on climate change were to weigh all the information out there as well as the source of the information and discarded anyone who had a vested interest monetarily in the outcome would come to a conclusion that climate change does exist, that it is caused by human activity and that something must be done about it as soon as possible.

    As usual you are articulate and well spoken and I respect your knowledge and wisdom. Thank you for your input and I shall weigh it carefully and consider all the information.
    Never Argue With An Idiot. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level And Beat You With Experience.

    Comment


    • Denier here, bring on the cuffs!
      Last edited by rollinslover64; 04-03-2014, 06:59 AM.

      Comment


      • The Climate debate reminds me of the Chinese drive-thru scene from Dude Where's My Car?

        Climatologists: We've establish a link between man-made induced CO2 and temperature.

        Skeptics: And Then?

        Climatologists: I'm afraid its not good. Our climate models predict catastrophic warming.

        Skeptics: And Then?

        Climatologists: Our models are correct. They are based upon standard laws of physics. They've been tested and verified through hindcasting.

        Skeptics: And Then?

        Climatologists: That's it.

        Skeptics: And Then?

        Climatologists: No more, “and then”, we're done.

        Skeptics: And Thennn?

        Climatologists: We're done, the science is settled and the debate is over. No more “and then”.

        Skeptics: And Thennnnnn?

        Climatologists: And then, I'm going to come in there and have you arrested for crimes against humanity.

        Skeptics: (brief pause) And Then, And Then,And Then,And Then,And Then????

        The truth is there is a very big “and then”. Its called model verification. Its very simple. If you are making predictions for 100 years in the future you should at least verify the accuracy of those predictions in the years leading up to the big event.

        This is so basic and common sense that if Climatologists are as smart as they say then I'm starting to get suspicious as to why they ignore it. I'm beginning to think that we have moved out the realm of science and into that of politics. Where facts don't matter anymore and consensus rules.

        If the science is so settled and its so self evident then you would think that Climatologists would be happy to discuss the issues and willing to show the skeptics and general public where they are wrong. Instead you are getting just the opposite. Censorship and threats.

        That does not sound like confidence to me.

        So dude, where's my warming?
        Last edited by cityboy; 04-03-2014, 07:53 AM. Reason: Final question

        Comment


        • Originally posted by redhawk View Post

          So, lets assume the government right now says that they are going to enact some kind of population control.
          They have through taxes and fees. Nearly every household needs two bread winners and progeny are unaffordable.
          You might be able to afford one or two but not seven like in my parents time.
          Who can afford seven I-phones? I-pads or what ever they are called.
          "A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Professor Hobbit View Post
            That's actually true. The eastern US in particular has actually gained a lot of forest in the past half century. The water quality in many areas is much better. Air quality is better in many cities.

            But much of that improvement is due to globalization. We have basically "outsourced" our pollution to poorer countries, who are now much dirtier than they were. All that smog over in China? That's from all the factories making stuff for us that we'd rather not make ourselves. All that rainforest cutting? That's grazing land for cattle so we can buy cheap hamburgers.

            out of sight, out of mind.
            Good point!
            "A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Neil View Post
              Exporting pollution. On a similar note, Japan has a long history of "exporting" deforestation.
              Never knew that, interesting.
              "A culture is no better than its woods." W.H. Auden

              Comment


              • "Global Warming" - wait, no I meant "Climate Change"

                Global warming is a business. Al Gore retired from politics with a net value of around $1.7 million dollars. He is now worth $200 million, flys a large jet anywhere he pleases, and quite often, and his house uses 20 times that of any typical house, all while he uses that jet to spread the word on the ills of "global warming". (Google this: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...sh-defeat.html)


                Then as we have enjoyed some lower then normal temperatures lately, they had to change tactics, and have renamed the beast "Climate Change" . A brilliant move for their business as it means that any weather that seems out of the norm is on the table for profit by those whose religion revolves around the "selling of weather for profit" church. Either by holding stock in alternative fuel companies, technologies or higher taxes. or any of a number of ways one can make money off of such things. They are very clever at it... Al alone has made $198 million in part- from the "Church".

                The fact is, the entire human civilization has evolved during an interglacial period. We like it this way, and from all our experience, things should always remain as they are. However, the only true inconvenient truth is, the earth will absolutely, positively, irrefutably return to a glaciated state. The process from which this is caused is not understood. It could be caused by higher then normal temperatures, forcing the oceans currents to go further north rather then being kicked over to Europe ( similar on other hemispheres) around Newfoundland and landing near the British Isles. .. This deviation north ( and south/depending on the hemisphere) , according to one theory, could be because of higher temps, melting ice caps. If this theory holds true, it will circulate much colder ocean temps down the European, western American, etc., etc. coasts, glaciers will form and grow year to year, once critical mass is reached, the glaciers, and snow cover ( reflecting the sun out) will create their own weather, plunging us into an ice age. This is a simplified explanation, the deep ocean currents would change as well- and it is only one theory. The fact is some sort of climate change will cause it.

                There was a little-ice age between 1300 & 1870 when a ....."Warming trend" thankfully arrived. Population and energy consumpton at that time is miniscule to what we have today. So why did climate change back then? What caused the warming that brought the earth our of other glaciations. Were you aware that at one time, the entire earth was frozen solid? (Google Ice Planet)

                It this caused by the sun? Google little Ice Age and you will see the plethora of stories around the 100 year low on sun-spot activity. Is it coincidence that "global warming" and sun spots or other sun related cycyles are interrelated somehow? What human activity can we blame for this?

                The sun's current space-weather cycle is the most anemic in 100 years, scientists say.




                Note that some scientists are saying "global Warming" and others are warning against an impending ice age... and some here think they have it all figured it out.. and now can blame somebody- and figure they should pay. So I am positive there is climate change, I expect it. The history of the world is on my side. I am however skeptical about anybody who pretends to know the reason and wants to take money from me because of it. Until they can tell me why the earth went through "climate change" so many times without man being present- and they can't- I will resist opening my wallet.

                Now you want to get into pollution? That is indeed an issue I am for addressing- and indeed, much of this is inter-connected. Pollution, certain types of insect killing genetically altered plants, chemicals that act like hormones prevalent in the environment, heavy metals, and all sorts of other environmental concerns are what scares me and there is something we must do about those. The correlation between humans and those is obvious, but in climate change it is not.
                Last edited by RichieC; 04-03-2014, 10:55 AM.

                Comment


                • I don't know whether anyone caught it, but Dr. Jared Diamond was a guest on the NPR program On Point this morning. I don't usually get to listen to this but had an out of the office appointment today.

                  Two of the questions discussed were to me profound:

                  1. In areas where we need to make collective decisions affecting the world's population, have our big, evolved brains become a liability? i.e, is our sense of group outweighed by individual self-preservation.

                  2. If climate change indeed was a massive hoax but we went ahead and implemented the recommendations of climate scientists, why would that be a problem? We would reduce our energy usage, reduce pollution,..., you fill in the rest.
                  Oscar Wilde:Work is the curse of the drinking class

                  Comment


                  • You'll never see stories like this in the "mainstream media"

                    Some important points from James Lovelock, former believer in global warming.........uh, sorry ..............climate change.

                    You see, I’m an independent scientist. I’m not funded by some government department or commercial body or anything like that. If I make a mistake, then I can go public with it. And you have to, because it is only by making mistakes that you can move ahead.”

                    They all talk, they pass laws, they do things, as if they knew what was happening. I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess. And a whole group of them meet together and encourage each other’s guesses.

                    I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air'.

                    I think the most outrageous example of climate scientists getting it wrong and not admitting it was the 2007 IPPC report. They happily accepted the Nobel prize, but their sea-level rise estimates, according to that very important Science paper by Rahmstorf, were 100% wrong.

                    Something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done’

                    The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said. “The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now,” he said. “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium.
                    Ahh............Wilderness.......

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by vtflyfish View Post
                      If climate change indeed was a massive hoax but we went ahead and implemented the recommendations of climate scientists, why would that be a problem? We would reduce our energy usage, reduce pollution,..., you fill in the rest.
                      Because the financial ramifications would be disastrous to our economy. The passage of cap and trade, or some variation of it, would drive energy costs through the roof.
                      "Let me say it as simply as I can: transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency."

                      Comment


                      • Oh, come on...can't just have Yellen print more money? Doesn't that fix everything else?

                        Comment


                        • Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

                          Originally posted by Limekiln View Post
                          Because the financial ramifications would be disastrous to our economy. The passage of cap and trade, or some variation of it, would drive energy costs through the roof.

                          Exactly.

                          Comment


                          • Sounds like Orwell's "1984" in 2014

                            Crackdown ordered on climate-change sceptics

                            Ministers who question the majority view among scientists about climate change should “shut up” and instead repeat the Government line on the issue, according to MPs. The BBC should also give less
                            Ahh............Wilderness.......

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by geogymn View Post
                              They have through taxes and fees. Nearly every household needs two bread winners and progeny are unaffordable.
                              You might be able to afford one or two but not seven like in my parents time.
                              Who can afford seven I-phones? I-pads or what ever they are called.
                              Of course, sooner or later someone has to bring politics into it. Progeny unaffordable?? DUUH, you keeping up? We're in another baby boom.
                              Taxes? Everyone wants the services and the comfort. People can afford to keep their thermostats at 70 - 80, run AC all summer. Gas hogging SUV's.

                              I think the taxes should be higher. ANd they should be based on what people consume. People with more than one car should pay more. People with more than one house should pay more. There should be a garbage tax. The more disposed goods, the higher the rate. GAs taxes and sales tax and registration on cars should be based om MPG The more gas consumed, the higher the tax. People with more than one child pay higher taxes based on the number of children.
                              "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

                              Comment


                              • I think 70 should be the maximum age limit, who needs these old grumps around anyway. Constantly going back and forth to the doctors office , burning up fossil fuels and contributing to global warming in the process. Come to think of it they're making the doctors rich so they can afford big gas hog SUVs.

                                Yep, Old folks, they're the problem.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X