Posted on Jul 23, 2014
Colder winter and cooler summer, the global warming theory sounds like junk. What do you think?
34K
680
512
8
8
0
Posted in these groups: 
Politics
Climate Change
Politics Climate Change
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 94
3
3
0
3
3
0
The news rarely reports those other voices, such as seasoned climatologists that although have acknowledged we do have some impact on the climate, they say it is insignificant to the forces scientists still don’t understand that have been warming the planet for over 10,000 years. These same voices have warned of an overdue period of major cooling, in a pattern that has occurred for thousands of years. I believe them because I studied this pattern in college long before the GW scare.
But like usual, we are creatures drawn to false dilemmas like moths to flames and so we think there are only two sides to the issue and only one is correct and absolutely correct. In fact, we are so drawn to false dilemmas that the voices of reason almost never get heard. This is great news for those seeking to persuade the public whether politicians or others who benefit from such crazy policies as the Kyoto Protocol.
These same voices point out that recent satellite imaging in places across the globe including where there are no thermometers reveals cooling temperatures not warming. But the major news houses will never report it on primetime and if so never in a way viewers might think it is true. Is it political bias? Maybe. But rest assured no story will pass the editor unless it is controversial and little more generates controversy like revealing extreme left views in a country that is mostly right of those views.
To understand the truth about such issues one must first accept two things: one, false dilemmas fail to describe let alone explain a world far more complex, and the other is that human beings can be reasonable or like a mob and false dilemmas brings out the mob’ish nature in us. The truth will then reveal itself more and more as one explores the data from all reasonable sources.
Regardless, we should improve our stewardship of our planet because the global climate is warming as it has on average for thousands of years so why help it if we can avoid doing so?
But like usual, we are creatures drawn to false dilemmas like moths to flames and so we think there are only two sides to the issue and only one is correct and absolutely correct. In fact, we are so drawn to false dilemmas that the voices of reason almost never get heard. This is great news for those seeking to persuade the public whether politicians or others who benefit from such crazy policies as the Kyoto Protocol.
These same voices point out that recent satellite imaging in places across the globe including where there are no thermometers reveals cooling temperatures not warming. But the major news houses will never report it on primetime and if so never in a way viewers might think it is true. Is it political bias? Maybe. But rest assured no story will pass the editor unless it is controversial and little more generates controversy like revealing extreme left views in a country that is mostly right of those views.
To understand the truth about such issues one must first accept two things: one, false dilemmas fail to describe let alone explain a world far more complex, and the other is that human beings can be reasonable or like a mob and false dilemmas brings out the mob’ish nature in us. The truth will then reveal itself more and more as one explores the data from all reasonable sources.
Regardless, we should improve our stewardship of our planet because the global climate is warming as it has on average for thousands of years so why help it if we can avoid doing so?
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
I shudder at the level of ignorance in this world, but what is most terrifying are all of the so-called experts who don't know that they don't know a thing. How could anyone who has done ANY kind of scholarly and legitimate research possibly stand firm in one direction or the other? Do yall really believe your resources and your perspectives are the end all/be all?
I'd go absolutely mad if I wasn't reassured by the Bible that I don't need to worry about anything. So I'll just go on about my frolicking way, but I'll leave everyone with this tip: BEFORE you refute someone's information, read it. See if it's valid.
I'd go absolutely mad if I wasn't reassured by the Bible that I don't need to worry about anything. So I'll just go on about my frolicking way, but I'll leave everyone with this tip: BEFORE you refute someone's information, read it. See if it's valid.
(3)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
Yes sir He is and He will humble the proud.
He reminds me daily of how inferior I am lol.
He reminds me daily of how inferior I am lol.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG V. Michelle Woods - Those who purport to know about the topic have assumed they do. As a Meteorologist I have seen the cause and effect of weather and how climatology tables are driven by weather events. I get so sick of politics but have faith in God and that negates any need to worry too much. Save for the arrogance of people who want to spend trillions (that we do not have) to address a problem we may not have. MAJ (Join to see) intimidated that we try to prove it wrong but as we all know, you cannot and should not try to prove a negative. MAJ Carl Ballinger MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
(2)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
SSgt (Join to see) I absolutely love your sense of humor but what makes you extra special is your knowledge and faith :) Wise words ^^
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
3
3
0
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/03_1.shtml
This is one of many articles which point to a cycle of 100,000 years that Earth experiences an Ice Age. We are currently at the cusp of the latest Ice Age, the last Mini Ice Age occurred during the dark ages. I doubt that Man/Cow Farts/Cars/Factories had much influence on the last few Ice Ages, I would ask for someone to come up with the science to show me they were.
As such, we are simply passengers on the roller coaster, we are not in control of the roller coaster. We cannot really effect the outcome of the ride only how comfortable we are on it.
This is one of many articles which point to a cycle of 100,000 years that Earth experiences an Ice Age. We are currently at the cusp of the latest Ice Age, the last Mini Ice Age occurred during the dark ages. I doubt that Man/Cow Farts/Cars/Factories had much influence on the last few Ice Ages, I would ask for someone to come up with the science to show me they were.
As such, we are simply passengers on the roller coaster, we are not in control of the roller coaster. We cannot really effect the outcome of the ride only how comfortable we are on it.
(3)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
One thing that has gone under reported is that the increase in carbon has actually created a greening of previously arid regions. There are some areas that have little rainfall that are experiencing increases in plant life.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - There are so many things that we do not know and here is why this matters. Do these increases happen necessarily incidental to the use of these fuels OR are they also caused by effects like continental drift, underwater volcanoes (oceanic mixing) which ultimately coincides with the aforementioned fossilized fuels. You talk about science, well let's talk about it. But before you do realize this, debate is two ways and not just with cherry-picked talking points to buttress an opinion.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Ray Fernandez
I think we're focusing on the wrong side of the cause effect equation. Increased carbon in the atmosphere is it a consequence of industrialization, or is it deforestation? plant life ingests CO2 and releases 02 we breathe in O2 and exhale CO2. Rain Forests have been clear cut for decades. So it may be man caused but the cause of it may be completely separate from fossil fuel usage. I do remember hearing and reading about "synthetic trees" in 2009 that claimed that they would act as CO2 scrubbers where each one could replace up to 50,000 trees. Yet I have not heard of any new developments in that tech in the last 5 years.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Whitney. Mt. St Helens disrupted weather for over 20 years and volcanic activity is ceaseless. Just because you do not personally see upwelling from underwater volcanoes and the atmospheric mixing that results does not mean it is not happening..
Meteorologist Larry Olson
Meteorologist Larry Olson
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Another good article from a few months ago:
"peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. "
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
"peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. "
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors...
This is a guest post byJames Lawrence Powell.
(3)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Hmm... another good article in disagreement with your good article.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html
There are a few others you can find if you want to, but one quote I really liked was this one:
"Well, I can tell Mr Powell that climate does change and has changed through all eternity so, to answer his first leg, "YES!" Climate Change is "real."
Is Climate Change caused by human activity. Well, also a qualified "YES!"
The question Powell should ask is - "Are Humans' emissions of carbon dioxide causing catastrophic global warming?" As there has been no significant warming for more than 17 years, the answer to this must be "NO!"
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/04/13950-meaningless-search-results.html
There are a few others you can find if you want to, but one quote I really liked was this one:
"Well, I can tell Mr Powell that climate does change and has changed through all eternity so, to answer his first leg, "YES!" Climate Change is "real."
Is Climate Change caused by human activity. Well, also a qualified "YES!"
The question Powell should ask is - "Are Humans' emissions of carbon dioxide causing catastrophic global warming?" As there has been no significant warming for more than 17 years, the answer to this must be "NO!"
The Australian Climate Sceptics Blog: The Global Warming Nazis are getting even more extreme.
Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
COL Randall C. They will brook no disagreement with their subjectivity and agenda-driven mess. How many times in our history have something been ruled an inviolable law and have been countermanded with some new angle. Physics is the harbinger of change. Sometimes good and sometimes JUST conventional wisdom.
(1)
(0)
MSgt (Join to see)
The article is a great example of science being used to push a political view using a false dilemma. I agree with the author in her or his (let's assume male) methodology notes that what question to ask is the first most important question to answer. The most important question was not whether journal articles reject anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) but whether they reject AGW as the only force of climate change. Not only did he ask the wrong, false dilemma question, but it is apparent from his notes that he did not study the articles but rather skimmed them. I disagree with it would take a lifetime to read that many articles because I read nearly that many in my masters and doctoral studies alone – and I still have a lot of life remaining (knock on wood).
To understand what view you should take, consider the following... First answer: why care? I care because the left political platform has been pushing for extreme policy that will significantly impact the economy and my way of life and the lives of my progeny. Are you ready to support extreme? I wasn’t. Also, look into policies of the right political platform. You may find there is already considerable support for environmental-friendly policy. The left does not have a monopoly on caring for the environment.
OK, so you decide it is important, now what?
The next question is what sort of policy would you support? What am I willing to give up? I also asked myself what would happen to the global climate if all technology and industry were suddenly shut down after say we miraculously grew enough food sources and horses to support the human population. Would global warming stop? The answer is no, the global climate would still be warming, but perhaps at a slower rate because there would be less greenhouse gas and more carbon sinks (greenhouse gases are temporary while carbon sinks are more permanent).
The next questions then arise: how much less would it be warming and would the policy that gets us there be worth it? The former question has not yet been answered and my answer to the latter question was “No” - the benefit would not be worth the adverse impact from extreme policy.
At this point some might argue there are too many people and the world population is growing too much and such impacts the climate (because the biology of all animals gives off greenhouse gases from both ends). So in this consideration, do you support global population control, maybe support the rising trend in some countries with socialized medicine of passively euthanizing the elderly or even forced sterilization? Would you want to be in those target categories? (I wouldn't.) At what point would this all sound like a modern version of eugenics?
Before you answer the question about supporting population control you might want to look into the fertility rate. In any country, every couple must have at least 2 children to replace them when they die, and every so many couples must have at least 3 children. The fertility rate for the United States needs to be about 2.1 children, which is 2 children per couple and 3 children every tenth couple. It may need to be higher since heart disease seems to be on the rise. Currently, the fertility rate of the United States is less than 2, meaning the population of the U.S. will eventually die off if that rate doesn't increase to 2.1. In undeveloped countries due to the mortality rate, they need to have nearly 4 children per couple.
Even if we let the low fertility rate make our species go instinct, the global climate would still be warming.
Now with these questions in mind, one must wonder what motivation would politicians or scientists have to push the extreme? One only has to follow the money. Scientists are often very political because fame and notoriety ultimately brings more research money. As for politicians, look at their money and more specifically, where does the money come from and where does the money go. Most countries are indebted to a private financial institution that makes interest on that debt.
I’m just saying...
To understand what view you should take, consider the following... First answer: why care? I care because the left political platform has been pushing for extreme policy that will significantly impact the economy and my way of life and the lives of my progeny. Are you ready to support extreme? I wasn’t. Also, look into policies of the right political platform. You may find there is already considerable support for environmental-friendly policy. The left does not have a monopoly on caring for the environment.
OK, so you decide it is important, now what?
The next question is what sort of policy would you support? What am I willing to give up? I also asked myself what would happen to the global climate if all technology and industry were suddenly shut down after say we miraculously grew enough food sources and horses to support the human population. Would global warming stop? The answer is no, the global climate would still be warming, but perhaps at a slower rate because there would be less greenhouse gas and more carbon sinks (greenhouse gases are temporary while carbon sinks are more permanent).
The next questions then arise: how much less would it be warming and would the policy that gets us there be worth it? The former question has not yet been answered and my answer to the latter question was “No” - the benefit would not be worth the adverse impact from extreme policy.
At this point some might argue there are too many people and the world population is growing too much and such impacts the climate (because the biology of all animals gives off greenhouse gases from both ends). So in this consideration, do you support global population control, maybe support the rising trend in some countries with socialized medicine of passively euthanizing the elderly or even forced sterilization? Would you want to be in those target categories? (I wouldn't.) At what point would this all sound like a modern version of eugenics?
Before you answer the question about supporting population control you might want to look into the fertility rate. In any country, every couple must have at least 2 children to replace them when they die, and every so many couples must have at least 3 children. The fertility rate for the United States needs to be about 2.1 children, which is 2 children per couple and 3 children every tenth couple. It may need to be higher since heart disease seems to be on the rise. Currently, the fertility rate of the United States is less than 2, meaning the population of the U.S. will eventually die off if that rate doesn't increase to 2.1. In undeveloped countries due to the mortality rate, they need to have nearly 4 children per couple.
Even if we let the low fertility rate make our species go instinct, the global climate would still be warming.
Now with these questions in mind, one must wonder what motivation would politicians or scientists have to push the extreme? One only has to follow the money. Scientists are often very political because fame and notoriety ultimately brings more research money. As for politicians, look at their money and more specifically, where does the money come from and where does the money go. Most countries are indebted to a private financial institution that makes interest on that debt.
I’m just saying...
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
Isn't that why they quit calling it 'global warming' and started calling it 'climate change'? Still skeptical about the whole thing myself, but still review arguments from both sides.
(3)
(0)
SFC Craig Dalen
It would probably be more beneficial if they focused on things that really matter rather than trying to find a name for natural things.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG Scott Williams The left uses snowfall as proof of global warming. That is hilarious.
(0)
(0)
CSM Frank Wood
the Scientific Community no longer refer global warming it is more accurate to call it climate change and also there is no consensus broadly to the assumption that it is man made, man aggravated, or even man influenced and since the creation of the planet there has been climate change without it Humans could not have inhabited this planet.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG Scott Williams CSM Frank Wood SSG Williams, actually moisture-laden air evaporates and cools the atmosphere much like an air conditioner.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I think that "global warming" is a very misleading moniker for climate change. Colder winters and cooler summers is evidence of a change in climate pattern along with the rising in Ocean temperatures due to the change in certain currents which use to infuse cooler water from the poles. It all wacky weather ties into a changing climates on a global scale. And this scientific matter should have never been politicized. Once the two became unseparable any chance of a grown up conversation was lost. Never in my life could I have imagined a person using "I'm not a scientist" as an excuse for not listening to the results that scientists have concluded to on a subject and utterly disregard the profession instead of consulting with them.
(2)
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
SSG Jovano Graves, I really like what you said, mostly. The last part about disregarding scientists though keeps me from fully understanding what your really trying to say? Scientists have become just as politicized as the rest of us. Both sides seem to make claim that 80% + are on each side. I can't figure out how that is possible...... So tell me, which scientists should I listen too?
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SPC Randy Torgerson, therein lies the problem. Science whether it be metrology, biology or any other of the disciplines that study our environment and therefore can lead to practices that can preserve not only the ecology of the planet but also life as we know it, should not be politically affected. I understand that studies need money in order to be fruitful but, that shouldn't depend on civilian donors if there is some ulterior motive. As far as, disregarding scientists I was referring to politicians who represent a population directly effected by climate change stating that they are not scientist and therefore do not believe it exist. We, as humans, believe we can shape landscape, elements and minds but when it comes to something on the grandeur scale such as climate change it becomes a "that's just the way the world works" argument.
(0)
(0)
SPC Randy Torgerson
Yes, I agree very much with your comments. However, scientist or not, we can't disregard the first 4 billion years and only look at the last 50,000. From 50,000 up to the last 500 years science seems to lean toward it being all natural. The data Al Gore uses tends to be less than 500 years in the past.
My mind can wrap around most things including worm holes and time travel. Earths eco & climate system is understandable based on all forms of education. I don't believe either argument is as valid as each side wants you to believe.
20 years ago Los Angeles's air quality was so bad that many days out of the year you couldn't see very far. It is literally 100% better now. Of course thanks to stricter business pollutants and automobile pollutants. So if its better today than 20 years ago why is it getting worse according to the human doomsday predictors? Because other countries don't follow suit? Then they need to do something. I don't like additional laws and rules on me just so some fat businesses tied to politics can make more money. And when the human doomsday predictors keep siding with those businesses and politicians they are just enabling them.
Is solar energy good? Sure it is. Is coal good? Sure it is. In California the state government pushed people to buy hybrid cars to save fuel. Now their bitching because their not selling enough fuel for tax money that they want to devise a plan to tax everyone on the miles they drive... There's just no stopping the crazy people.... And determining who the crazy people are is sometimes hard..
My mind can wrap around most things including worm holes and time travel. Earths eco & climate system is understandable based on all forms of education. I don't believe either argument is as valid as each side wants you to believe.
20 years ago Los Angeles's air quality was so bad that many days out of the year you couldn't see very far. It is literally 100% better now. Of course thanks to stricter business pollutants and automobile pollutants. So if its better today than 20 years ago why is it getting worse according to the human doomsday predictors? Because other countries don't follow suit? Then they need to do something. I don't like additional laws and rules on me just so some fat businesses tied to politics can make more money. And when the human doomsday predictors keep siding with those businesses and politicians they are just enabling them.
Is solar energy good? Sure it is. Is coal good? Sure it is. In California the state government pushed people to buy hybrid cars to save fuel. Now their bitching because their not selling enough fuel for tax money that they want to devise a plan to tax everyone on the miles they drive... There's just no stopping the crazy people.... And determining who the crazy people are is sometimes hard..
(1)
(0)
MSG (Join to see)
SPC Randy Torgerson, I definitely agree with you. I would like to share my viewpoint on the fact that Al Gore (who I believe did absolutely nothing positive for the argument of climate change other than introducing it to the mainstream) and the research he tends to lean on only takes into account the last 500 years or so is because that would be the timeframe in which humams starting introducing unnatural susbstances into the atmosphere with alchemy, machinery and weapons of mass destruction to name a few. Before that, I have no argument that the climate change was natural because until that point we were unable to affect our environment in such as grand way. All of the policy controlling politics to strangle business and the common people of a choice and livelihood comes partly on our individual inactions as a people to police ourselves up in the local level. We all know what happens when rules are forces from top down instead of being self regulated.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SSG (Join to see)
Sir, straw man argument and a diversion of the problem.
FACT: Earth has been around for at least thousands of years, probably more.
FACT: The earth's climate has changed all the time throughout its history of existence, even before man existed.
FACT: The earth is constantly healing itself from the damaging effects of natural occurring phenomenon.
FACT: The vast majority of damage is NOT caused by man, nor is man capable of conducting more damage than the earth.
To answer your questions, NO and YES. See above for rational answers.
FACT: Earth has been around for at least thousands of years, probably more.
FACT: The earth's climate has changed all the time throughout its history of existence, even before man existed.
FACT: The earth is constantly healing itself from the damaging effects of natural occurring phenomenon.
FACT: The vast majority of damage is NOT caused by man, nor is man capable of conducting more damage than the earth.
To answer your questions, NO and YES. See above for rational answers.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
And I reiterate the original question above: Show ALL of us when has there NOT ever been change in the climate?
(1)
(0)
TSgt James Cutler
I will not destroy economies, jobs, and livelihoods. I will not restrict freedom, based upon questionable at best science. MAN made climate change is hubris thinking we have that dramatic an effect on the planet. I will support clean energy, clean methods of doing things BUT I will not support forced destruction of industries for the profit of pet industries. THIS IS WHAT CLIMATE CHANGE IDIOTS ARE DOING. Should we live as clean as possible? Sure. Should the government select winners and looser? NO. Should the USA bend over backwards when the rest of the world will not? NO.
(0)
(0)
MSG(P) Michael Warrick
Predicting global warming is like predicting the weather and we all know how the weather men predict the weather. Not good at all !!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Note: Forgive me if this comment repeats. It doesn't appear that my first attempt succeeded, but it may have]
Let's first define our terms. "Global Warming" is no longer the theme of the debate. They replaced that term with "Climate Change". To be honest, their focus is "man-made" climate change".
Climate change is an absolute and unassailable fact. Earth's climate has gone through major and minor changes throughout its existence. These cycles began long before man appeared, so it is futile to argue with it. However, we may reasonably question man's effect on climate change.
Thus far, the data supporting the case for man-made climate change is suspect. The only evidence the proponents have advanced is in the form of computer models built on selected data sets and there is ample evidence that these data sets have been manipulated to make their case.
Burt Rutan, an excellent engineer, published an exhaustive study of these data. Granted, Burt Rutan is not a climatologist. He makes no claims to be one. However, he points out that he is expert in studying data and limits his conclusions to that aspect. You can see them explained in layman's terms at
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Sadly, the scientists who argue for man-made climate change are not climatologists either. They appear to be academics who have fallen into the trap believing that their uncommon knowledge in their limited fields of study make them expert in whatever they choose to focus on.
So, if it is not science, what is it? Personally, I believe it is tyranny. It is the effort of our "betters" to tell us what to do. They attempt to make us feel guilty about harming the environment and then use force of law as well as societal and cultural pressures to bend our will to theirs.
Let's first define our terms. "Global Warming" is no longer the theme of the debate. They replaced that term with "Climate Change". To be honest, their focus is "man-made" climate change".
Climate change is an absolute and unassailable fact. Earth's climate has gone through major and minor changes throughout its existence. These cycles began long before man appeared, so it is futile to argue with it. However, we may reasonably question man's effect on climate change.
Thus far, the data supporting the case for man-made climate change is suspect. The only evidence the proponents have advanced is in the form of computer models built on selected data sets and there is ample evidence that these data sets have been manipulated to make their case.
Burt Rutan, an excellent engineer, published an exhaustive study of these data. Granted, Burt Rutan is not a climatologist. He makes no claims to be one. However, he points out that he is expert in studying data and limits his conclusions to that aspect. You can see them explained in layman's terms at
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Sadly, the scientists who argue for man-made climate change are not climatologists either. They appear to be academics who have fallen into the trap believing that their uncommon knowledge in their limited fields of study make them expert in whatever they choose to focus on.
So, if it is not science, what is it? Personally, I believe it is tyranny. It is the effort of our "betters" to tell us what to do. They attempt to make us feel guilty about harming the environment and then use force of law as well as societal and cultural pressures to bend our will to theirs.
This report includes many all-new data presentations and focuses on presenting climate data to Inform, rather than to Scare. Not a climate science reference, but a unique perspective - An engineering critique of the activist climate scientists and their process of data gathering, processing and presentation. It also has sections on climate adaptation and scientific consensus. No author approvals are required for distribution, please feel free...
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google