• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

The Final Straw on Climate Change Lies???

I think I've resigned myself to this reasoning:

I can't affect the planet. What we do as a species doesn't affect the planet either. The earth has changed, frozen, thawed, warmed, cooled and exterminated species in it's own interests. It's going to do what it's doing completely regardless of us.

So I'm going to keep doing what I want to do in my interests. By the time the earth decides to change and affect me or the generations of me, it will be MILLIONS of years from now.
 
RedHeep said:
So I'm going to keep doing what I want to do in my interests.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you you said except the problem as I see it is that there are plenty of rich powerful people who don't think you should should be able to keep doing what you want to do in your interests and they are doing a lot to make sure you can't do them anymore.
 
RedHeep said:
I can't affect the planet. What we do as a species doesn't affect the planet either.
Click to expand...

Remember Chernobyl? It's well within our power to alter the planet as a species. We can bring the onset of nuclear winter, clear-cut rainforests to reduce our air quality, bring a species to extinction/ alter ecosystems, or contaminate our water supply to a degree where it bends genders. It's a tad ignorant to think we're not affecting our environment. The real question is how much of the current climate conditions are actually our fault, and how much power do we have, as individuals, to do anything about it.
 
/\ It's funny how arrogant we as a species are thinking that we can actually permanently affect such a large phenomenon like global weather, unbelievable.

I ask you this, what ended the last ice age? Global warming. And I don't think it was human caused.

It's so funny how people like Rod get so offended and fly off the handle so easily when you question their "religion", which is what this is to these nutjobs.

It amazes me that when "global warming" no longer fits the bill, they have to switch it to "climate change"

Do yourself a favor Rod, read "The Deniers", although nothing will change a tree hugger's mind.
 
tkjeeper said:
/\ It's funny how arrogant we as a species are thinking that we can actually permanently affect such a large phenomenon like global weather, unbelievable.

I ask you this, what ended the last ice age? Global warming. And I don't think it was human caused.

It's so funny how people like Rod get so offended and fly off the handle so easily when you question their "religion", which is what this is to these nutjobs.

It amazes me that when "global warming" no longer fits the bill, they have to switch it to "climate change"

Do yourself a favor Rod, read "The Deniers", although nothing will change a tree hugger's mind.
Click to expand...

Flying off the handle? Look whose talking.
 
DrMoab said:
I agree with everything you you said except the problem as I see it is that there are plenty of rich powerful people who don't think you should should be able to keep doing what you want to do in your interests and they are doing a lot to make sure you can't do them anymore.
Click to expand...

I agree. But until we're as organized as they are, all I can keep doing is spend my $35 or $50 for organizations to help prevent that.
 
urban yan said:
Remember Chernobyl? It's well within our power to alter the planet as a species. We can bring the onset of nuclear winter, clear-cut rainforests to reduce our air quality, bring a species to extinction/ alter ecosystems, or contaminate our water supply to a degree where it bends genders. It's a tad ignorant to think we're not affecting our environment. The real question is how much of the current climate conditions are actually our fault, and how much power do we have, as individuals, to do anything about it.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is none and nothing. The planet is way bigger than we are.

Do you know why people attribute this climate change phenomenon to the industrial age?

Because that's as far back as our temperature records go.

Here's what you can do:

Go out to your XJ. Start it up, pull it out of the driveway and put it in drive (or first if you're so inclined).

Drive 2 feet.

Now calculate your mileage for the next 100,000 miles or so based on what you just used and how far you just went.

That's about how much information we have about temperature on the planet in the last million years or so and that's what "scientists" are doing to figure out what's going on with the world.
 
urban yan said:
clear-cut rainforests to reduce our air quality.
Click to expand...

There are over 100,000 things in the rainforest that can kill you.

RedHeep said:
Go out to your XJ. Start it up, pull it out of the driveway and put it in drive (or first if you're so inclined).

Drive 2 feet.

Now calculate your mileage for the next 100,000 miles or so based on what you just used and how far you just went.

That's about how much information we have about temperature on the planet in the last million years or so and that's what "scientists" are doing to figure out what's going on with the world.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is a pretty damn good analogy. People say that through core sampling of ice we can generate accurate records for eons, but I believe they are full of shit.
 
RedHeep said:
The answer to your question is none and nothing. The planet is way bigger than we are.

Do you know why people attribute this climate change phenomenon to the industrial age?
Because that's as far back as our temperature records go.
Here's what you can do:
Go out to your XJ. Start it up, pull it out of the driveway and put it in drive (or first if you're so inclined).
Drive 2 feet.
Now calculate your mileage for the next 100,000 miles or so based on what you just used and how far you just went.

That's about how much information we have about temperature on the planet in the last million years or so and that's what "scientists" are doing to figure out what's going on with the world.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying; In fact, I'm the last guy to attribute our current climate conundrum solely to people; I understand the ridiculousness of such conclusions. At the same time I think it's risky to give people a free pass on this matter. We don't exactly have a stellar track record as stewards of this planet. We know our activities create greenhouse gases (that trap heat), and we know much of those activities are cumulative. We know cities radiate several degrees more heat than their rural surroundings, black roofs tax our power grids in the summer via higher air conditioning costs, etc, etc, etc... I understand this is big planet, but it's also a heavily populated one, and our numbers are growing (along with our appetites).

Look my bottomline's that I don't know our exact impact, but I know we're making some kind of impact (if not at a macro level than definitely at a micro level). I'm not about to stop driving my Jeep because some hippy in a Prius gave me a sour look, but I'm not going to ignore the possibility of climate change because some agenda driven asshat at fox news told it isn't real.



wolfpackjeeper said:
There are over 100,000 things in the rainforest that can kill you.
Click to expand...
... and something like 40% of our oxygen ...and quite a few potentially useful medicinal plants.



tkjeeper said:
Once again urban, nothing to contribute, same as always for you eh? Can you contribute or address my comments?
Click to expand...
That depends, am I allowed to use "big people words" or will that confuse you? Your mind froze-up last time we discussed music copyright laws. I'd hate to see you suffer a relapse.
 
tkjeeper said:
Just to educate you Rod and Urban.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Click to expand...

Interesting article, thanks for bringing it to our attention but, I must insist as a courtesy to the originator of this thread that the topic he chose to bring up be stuck to. The topic is whether or not closure of atmospheric gauging stations constitutes evidence of a purposeful bias toward warming. It is not about whether warming is occurring, whether or not climate fluctuates naturally (it most certainly does), or to what extent the current warming is human induced. It’s not about Phil Jones’ lack of organizational skill or any moderation of his views, and it certainly is not about what is or isn’t my religion.



So, did you have a comment on the article linked to in the initial post of this thread? Perhaps a good point of discussion would be why the author assumes that a simple arithmetic average of measuring stations is used rather than weighted averages and temperature anomalies, which alleviate concern over any bias introduced by any closure of “cold” stations.


“In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.”

“The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith and Reynolds, 2005). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator.”

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html



In addition, I wonder why the author states that the stations were closed around 1990, at about the same time as “jumps in measured temperatures occur”, when actually temperatures began rising in the 1970’s after a period of relative stasis lasting roughly 30 years (see link). What is your take on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
 
urban yan said:
I understand what you're saying; In fact, I'm the last guy to attribute our current climate conundrum solely to people; I understand the ridiculousness of such conclusions. At the same time I think it's risky to give people a free pass on this matter. We don't exactly have a stellar track record as stewards of this planet. We know our activities create greenhouse gases (that trap heat), and we know much of those activities are cumulative. We know cities radiate several degrees more heat than their rural surroundings, black roofs tax our power grids in the summer via higher air conditioning costs, etc, etc, etc... I understand this is big planet, but it's also a heavily populated one, and our numbers are growing (along with our appetites).

Look my bottomline's that I don't know our exact impact, but I know we're making some kind of impact (if not at a macro level than definitely at a micro level). I'm not about to stop driving my Jeep because some hippy in a Prius gave me a sour look, but I'm not going to ignore the possibility of climate change because some agenda driven asshat at fox news told it isn't real.




... and something like 40% of our oxygen ...and quite a few potentially useful medicinal plants.




That depends, am I allowed to use "big people words" or will that confuse you? Your mind froze-up last time we discussed music copyright laws. I'd hate to see you suffer a relapse.
Click to expand...

Yeah, MY mind froze up, you live in the same fantasy world as their president. Good to see you add something for a change.
 
Rod Knee said:
Interesting article, thanks for bringing it to our attention but, I must insist as a courtesy to the originator of this thread that the topic he chose to bring up be stuck to. The topic is whether or not closure of atmospheric gauging stations constitutes evidence of a purposeful bias toward warming. It is not about whether warming is occurring, whether or not climate fluctuates naturally (it most certainly does), or to what extent the current warming is human induced. It’s not about Phil Jones’ lack of organizational skill or any moderation of his views, and it certainly is not about what is or isn’t my religion.



So, did you have a comment on the article linked to in the initial post of this thread? Perhaps a good point of discussion would be why the author assumes that a simple arithmetic average of measuring stations is used rather than weighted averages and temperature anomalies, which alleviate concern over any bias introduced by any closure of “cold” stations.


“In mountainous areas, most observations come from the inhabited valleys, so the effect of elevation on a region’s average temperature must be considered as well. For example, a summer month over an area may be cooler than average, both at a mountain top and in a nearby valley, but the absolute temperatures will be quite different at the two locations. The use of anomalies in this case will show that temperatures for both locations were below average.”

“The global time series is produced from the Smith and Reynolds blended land and ocean data set (Smith and Reynolds, 2005). This data set consists of monthly average temperature anomalies on a 5° x 5° grid across land and ocean surfaces. These grid boxes are then averaged to provide an average global temperature anomaly. An area-weighted scheme is used to reflect the reality that the boxes are smaller near the poles and larger near the equator.”

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.html



In addition, I wonder why the author states that the stations were closed around 1990, at about the same time as “jumps in measured temperatures occur”, when actually temperatures began rising in the 1970’s after a period of relative stasis lasting roughly 30 years (see link). What is your take on that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Click to expand...

My comment is this, you can make numbers say anything you want, you can add all the links to this post you like, the fact is, unlike your side of the argument would like people to believe, the jury is not out on man made global warming. It is not a fact, far from it. I am not a scientist and don't claim to be one. I use common sense. And just like the Life magazine cover from the 70's, that said the next ice age is here, the sexy thing now is global warming. It's embarrassing. The amount of money put into this hoax with the help of the wacko left who do view this as a religion, is pathetic. But the real problem is forcing your opinion on the masses by mandating compact fluorescent light bulbs and unbelievable restrictions on vehicle emissions. It's a shame. And should be against our rights.
 
TKjeeper,

My side of the argument? I actually agree with you a fair degree there. I said above myself that the jury isn't out on human induced warming. I just don't buy the world-wide conspiracy bit. But to the point, if you are to ascribe emotionality and religiosity to my reaction to the topic presented at the head of the thread, I should expect you to take a stab at addressing my take on technical aspects of it.

Take care.
 
tkjeeper said:
My comment is this, you can make numbers say anything you want, you can add all the links to this post you like, the fact is, unlike your side of the argument would like people to believe, the jury is not out on man made global warming. It is not a fact, far from it. I am not a scientist and don't claim to be one. I use common sense. And just like the Life magazine cover from the 70's, that said the next ice age is here, the sexy thing now is global warming. It's embarrassing. The amount of money put into this hoax with the help of the wacko left who do view this as a religion, is pathetic. But the real problem is forcing your opinion on the masses by mandating compact fluorescent light bulbs and unbelievable restrictions on vehicle emissions. It's a shame. And should be against our rights.
Click to expand...

You're not a scientist (or an expert) in this field; therefore, no more qualified to discuss this topic than the rest of us, yet you've satisfied yourself to believe global warming is a scam.
How does that make you any better than someone like Al Gore for example?

If you ask me, humanity's biggest problem isn't global warming, it's our arrogance.



tkjeeper said:
Yeah, MY mind froze up, you live in the same fantasy world as their president. Good to see you add something for a change.
Click to expand...
My fantasies wouldn't include reading your posts; therefore, this must be one of my rare, ever so unpleasant nightmares.
 
Man, I hate to jump into this, but I guess I will...

urban yan said:
You're not a scientist (or an expert) in this field; therefore, no more qualified to discuss this topic than the rest of us, yet you've satisfied yourself to believe global warming is a scam.
How does that make you any better than someone like Al Gore for example?
Click to expand...

... because I don't try to disguise my ignorance with a veil of self-righteousness, then use the corrupt power of the federal government to impose insanely expensive regulations and restrictions on others, that will oh-so-conveniently make me personally very, very wealthy.

That's what makes me better than Al Gore.

Robert
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top