Climate debate absurd

  • Follow Letters

I have some ideas concerning global warming, climate change or Wizard of Oz-type weather changes.

First, unless the whole world follows the same rules, it’ll never work. Of course the world is doomed – carbon dioxide is rampant, so what difference at this point does it really make? However, we can do some things such as banning the consumption of beans, broccoli and carbonated soda. Every human being should hold his or her breath for 30 seconds every three minutes.

We must destroy all vegetation that is addicted to CO2, since CO2 kills. Should we advance abortion to keep CO2-exhalers from being born? Do we rely on “green” companies even though 36 are bankrupt or failing?

Could it be a simpler answer? Anti-gas medicine for everyone, including cows that obviously are trying to destroy the world with their methane gas emissions.

We are living in the theater of the absurd, so why not absurd answers for those who chase Chicken Little screaming, “The hot sky is falling, the hot sky is falling”?

Comments (129) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
burninater
9404
Points
burninater 05/25/14 - 02:38 am
1
12
And they said artificial

And they said artificial intelligence was impossible.

myfather15
54869
Points
myfather15 05/25/14 - 06:47 am
12
2
Yes, let's completely ignore

Yes, let's completely ignore the 35,000 scientist who just signed the petition against MANMADE global warming!!

Let's just believe Mr. Cool (Obama) and his minions, that the debate is over!! The only scientist that can trusted, are left wing scientists, right?

Bizkit
30831
Points
Bizkit 05/25/14 - 07:44 am
9
1
This man-made global warming

This man-made global warming debate has been going since the early 1900s. Probably in another hundred years we will still be talking about this problem and how to deal with it. But I wouldn't be too concerned anything bad is going to happen. The atmosphere can hold a lot more carbon dioxide and the oceans withstand a lot more acidification before there is a need for alarm. We shouldn't intervene and let nature takes its course. We are a part of nature too-just another mammal. So it more proper to call it Biological made-global warming-we are not outside our own biology. If we stopped all fossil fuel usage we would still be producing too much carbon dioxide from other human activity-like farming, deforestation, depleting peat bogs-a carbon sink, etc. People are naive to think it is just fossil fuel-but all of man's activities contribute.

edcushman
7930
Points
edcushman 05/25/14 - 08:49 am
8
2
"And they said artificial
Unpublished

"And they said artificial intelligence was impossible."
burn, no it is brainwashing on the left. The sheep on the left continue to believe the lies spread by their leaders.

carcraft
25290
Points
carcraft 05/25/14 - 08:52 am
7
2
We have known about

We have known about artificial intelligence for years, at least the last six! Many times it seems as if the TOTUS (tele prompter of the US) has been running the country, or at least the speechs, "the world has warmered fast in the last 10 years than any time before "! Even the global warming sky is falling scientists can't support that one!

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 05/25/14 - 09:24 am
4
9
The debate about the

The debate about the scientific consensus on global warming is essentially over. 97% of the people who are trained to study climate change and have looked at the problem most closely agree - man-caused CO2 emissions is warming us up. The most compelling evidence are the measures of inbound and outbound radiation. The outbound radiation has altered its spectrum (the frequency content of its radiation) with a clear CO2 signature. Changes in inbound and outbound radiation closely match absorbed heat of the air and oceans of the earth. It is a good fit, which is why such a large fraction of scientists who study climate change agree.

The debate about appropriate action is NO WHERE NEAR CONSENSUS, and the appropriate path is NO WHERE NEAR AS OBVIOUS as the scientific consensus on the cause. What are the costs and likely outcomes from trying to make a difference? Because for sure there will be costs, and these will impact our competitiveness as a nation.

dichotomy
32150
Points
dichotomy 05/25/14 - 11:43 am
7
1
"The debate about appropriate

"The debate about appropriate action is NO WHERE NEAR CONSENSUS, and the appropriate path is NO WHERE NEAR AS OBVIOUS as the scientific consensus on the cause."

I gave WBC a thumbs up on this one. Although I do not agree that it is settled science that this is man-made. The global climate has changed many times over millions of years before man ever walked the face of the earth. All of our hugely expensive efforts to reduce man-made carbon emissions are wiped out by one good volcanic eruption or multiple lightning strike forest fires. So even if the world had ZERO emission, the global climate might change anyway. It's a cyclic thing.

We in the U.S. have made huge financial sacrifices to lower our carbon emissions. No other country in the world has matched our efforts. Most of the "global" carbon emissions today, including the ones that are affecting our weather patterns, come from China, India, and Eastern European industrialized countries. That was confirmed in a study just recently.

All of you global climate change folks need to go get China, India, and the rest of the world to MATCH the air quality that we in the U.S. have already attained....and paid the price for. Then you can come back and talk about U.S. citizens being punished some more to fix a "global" problem that they cannot control. There is just so much the U.S. can do. We have led the way and paid the economic price for it. But even if the U.S. had ZERO emissions the rest of the world is taking up our slack as OUR industries relocate to THEIR more emission friendly climate. Nothing we have done has fixed ANYTHING globally because when we clamp down, they just go somewhere else and continue to march in an even LESS regulated country.

Think about it and see how stupid we in the U.S. are about "global" emissions. If it is a global problem then go fix the rest of the globe because we cannot stand anymore fixing.

Darby
25098
Points
Darby 05/25/14 - 12:19 pm
7
0
Nothing lifts the spirits

like a little dose of well directed and well deserved satire .

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 01:28 pm
8
1
"97% of the people who are

"97% of the people who are trained to study climate change and have looked at the problem most closely agree - man-caused CO2 emissions is warming us up."

I keep seeing a figure like 97% percent attached to the quantity of scientists who are on board with anthropogenic global warming. (Sometimes it's 98%).

I've never seen any kind of attribution to a source for this.

Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it were actually this high--in lip service if nothing else. It takes a lot of courage to stand against a hysterical mob like the global warming people, especially if one's job might be jeopardized by doing so.

carcraft
25290
Points
carcraft 05/25/14 - 02:08 pm
8
1
95% of Scientology scientists

95% of Scientology scientists are convinced it is reliable! The majority of voodoo witch doctors believe it works. Two new areas of settled science!

burninater
9404
Points
burninater 05/25/14 - 02:27 pm
1
7
"I keep seeing a figure like

"I keep seeing a figure like 97% percent attached to the quantity of scientists who are on board with anthropogenic global warming. (Sometimes it's 98%).

I've never seen any kind of attribution to a source for this."
-------
Here you go, stuaby.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

Curious, you didn't ask for the attribution for the 35,000 "scientists" who signed the anti-AGW petition. You know what their qualification requirements were, right? No? They needed to have a bachelor's degree in a science. That's it. So, some computer science grad sitting in his basement drinking Mountain Dew and playing World of Warcraft for 12 hours a day could qualify as a "scientist" on that petition. Is that who signed it? We don't know! The petition holders refuse to say who's on the petition!

Why do otherwise sensible people suddenly do everything in their power to deny the overwhelming evidence on AGW? People are being suckered into Flat Earthism on this by folks whose only qualification is that they can stay sober long enough to rant into a microphone for a few hours a week.

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 03:19 pm
7
1
Burninater, I clicked on the

Burninater, I clicked on the link you put up. All the article did was repeat the assertion, w/o saying where it came from - which is what I keep seeing.

On the heels of that, I went out looking for the source of this. John Cook is one at least. Turns out he "Cooked (!) the books" in it:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmi...

Figures. Every time I turn around there seems to be something suspicious with this theory. Like those emails from the U. of East Anglia.

burninater
9404
Points
burninater 05/25/14 - 05:09 pm
1
4
"Burninater, I clicked on the

"Burninater, I clicked on the link you put up. All the article did was repeat the assertion, w/o saying where it came from - which is what I keep seeing."
-------
Stauby, the NASA article has a footnote for the 97% claim. It includes these peer-reviewed journal articles:

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

You'll note that John Cook is not a source for this -- the Forbes article you link is unrelated to this NASA article.

The Heartland Institute claims to discredit two of the above sources.

http://heartland.org/policy-documents/yet-more-problems-anderegg-et-al-d...

For one of the papers, its opposing "experts" are: a professor of environmental studies; the Heartland Institute president; a professional blogger; two reporters; and a list of comments on a comment board that won't load if you click the link.

Seriously. That's the "quality" of this specific denial argument. There are legitimate reasons why AGW deniers are viewed as dubious.

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 05:37 pm
5
1
"Stauby, the NASA article has

"Stauby, the NASA article has a footnote for the 97% claim."

I saw the footnotes. I went and scanned the references. None of them said anything that amounts to: "97% of the people who are trained to study climate change and have looked at the problem most closely agree - man-caused CO2 emissions is warming us up."

Again, the NASA piece does not say where this "97% agree" comes from.

This is what happens. People throw numbers around because they know the typical individual will get lost in the tall grass or won't go there at all.

burninater
9404
Points
burninater 05/25/14 - 05:46 pm
2
5
"I went and scanned the

"I went and scanned the references. None of them said anything that amounts to: "97% of the people who are trained ..."
--------
You did?

That's funny. The abstract for the first paper clearly states:

"Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

I didn't bother checking the other two, as the first clearly shows your claim to be untrue.

myfather15
54869
Points
myfather15 05/25/14 - 05:47 pm
5
1
Walter

The cost is much more than you obviously realize, and affects individuals Americans, every day with the price of groceries, vehicle maintenance and more.

Go to the grocery store and see how many products have corn starch in them. The cost of ethanol has caused grocery prices to increase dramatically over the last decade. Before the ethanol boom, a 50 pound bag of corn would cost approximately $6.00 and I bought MANY of them!! After the ethanol boom, the average price of a 50 pound bag was $11.50. This caused meat prices to go up because of costs in feed cattle. The cost affect of this "global warming" is MUCH greater than you would suggest, and the results on the climate are minimal to non-existent!! Yes, I could post MANY links to studies suggesting we haven't made a single dent in climate change, but why? You can do that yourself and save me the time!!

Also, ask your local mechanic about the results of ethonol being ran in vehicles!! After long periods of use, the ethanol clots and starts clogging the fuel systems, requiring expensive repair costs. I've experienced this personally and it cost me and arm and two legs!!

I've also had to take a chain saw, weed eater and riding lawn mower to my repair guy and get the carburetor's cleaned out and in one case, completely rebuilt!! All because of ethanol gas being ran in them!!

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 05:52 pm
5
1
The closest thing I see to

The closest thing I see to this is the "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" piece in which 97% of "scholars in the know" responded to the author's survey question no. 2 which asks "Do you think human activity is a _significant contributing factor_...?" by saying yes. Well this is not the same as: "it's causing it". Very crafty on their part. Something that accounts for 35% of a problem is significant. Heck, 10% is significant.

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 06:00 pm
5
1
""Here, we use an extensive

""Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and..."

This is not convincing. All of these "papers" mysteriously come up with the their own internal "Simon Says 97% " figure independently of one another? I don't think so.

It's just like that damning email from that U. of East Anglia prof said. "We all have to present a solid front on this issue.", and "I can always hide behind X."

It's propaganda to keep the research dollars flowing

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 06:18 pm
5
1
More observations:1.

More observations:
1. 97-98%. Which is it? In doing calculations you get a single number, which should, alone, be used.
2. One source has 97% support for the "tenets of...", another has 97% responding yes to a single question in a survey. The NASA piece, referring to the above says that "97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are _very likely_ due to human activities"

Three distinct assertions, all mysteriously with a figure of 97% attached.

Come on! Everyone in this camp has latched onto 97% and is running with it.

Burninater, I'm glad this works for you Holmes, more power to ya, but it still looks like a large pile of it to me.

allhans
23546
Points
allhans 05/25/14 - 06:50 pm
4
0
Global warming is the least

Global warming is the least of our problems....

jimmymac
37210
Points
jimmymac 05/25/14 - 06:53 pm
0
0
AGREEMENT
Unpublished

Recently a man who was deeply involved with Greenpeace has broken with the group because he said that global warming assertion data was being fudged. Far too many of these so called scientists depend on money being dumped into the research trough and none are willing to see that money dry up. I don't trust anyone who's livelihood is dependent on their so called research.

Bizkit
30831
Points
Bizkit 05/25/14 - 07:10 pm
4
0
I can name several hypotheses

I can name several hypotheses with thousands of publications and grants for over twenty years that demonstrated them to be true-till I came along and falsified both. One researcher soon retired after I blew him out of the water. Another researcher was ticked because he found the same as I but i beat to publication. Science is a process. ""... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

Gage Creed
16786
Points
Gage Creed 05/25/14 - 08:21 pm
3
0
Little Ice Age

Uncle BS ... where were you in the summer of 1816?

Summer of 1816 ya say? Lemme see Summer of 1816, Sno-Cone salesman Lake Geneva Switzerland. Business was horrible, there was no summer, folks kept talking about some monster name of AGW... I never did see no monster named AGW.

There was this lady...Mary Shelly, used to be my best customer, loved her a blue raspberry sno-cone. Well sir, the weather was so cold Mrs. Mary and her husband camped around the fire and told horror stories. The ladies down to the laundry said Mrs. Mary wrote her one of them best sellers about some man-made monster. I looked and looked in the library, but couldn't find no monster book Mrs. Mary wrote about a monster name of AGW.

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/littleicea...

Edit: Props to Tim Wilson for the takeoff on his Uncle BS character. RIP Tim Wilson

WalterBradfordCannon
1421
Points
WalterBradfordCannon 05/25/14 - 08:43 pm
0
3
The 97% number I posted can

The 97% number I posted can be variously attributed to the percentage of scientists who published peer reviewed science on climate change relatively recently (they number over 900) or the fraction of manuscripts in peer review journals published relatively recently that support the stance that human caused CO2 emissions are largely responsible for the current global warming phenomena (roughly 1 degree Celsius in the last 100 years) with continued consistent predictions into the future. The references are not hard to find.

A summary, citing primary sources, may be found here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Primary sources
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107
(Importantly, the sciencemag and pnas articles are peer reviewed)

burninater
9404
Points
burninater 05/25/14 - 09:14 pm
0
3
"Three distinct assertions,

"Three distinct assertions, all mysteriously with a figure of 97% attached."
-----
False.

There is no mystery to how the 97% was reached, in any of these cases. The data and the methods are completely public, and exist in public articles that were peer-reviewed for error in methodology.

Anyone can duplicate the work and see if there was any 'mystery' in the conclusion -- and if there was, that would be a basis for retraction of the study. That's how peer review, and science, work.

If three transparent studies reach the same conclusion with three different methodologies, there is a clear reason for it: the conclusion has merit.

deestafford
26609
Points
deestafford 05/25/14 - 09:21 pm
3
0
I've got a few questions....

I've got a few questions.

How is it that something (CO2) which is 4/10ths of 1% of the atmosphere cause global warming when there is some historical evidence that an increase in CO2 followed warming? Also, the amount of CO2 contributed by man according to some sources is .0275 of that 4/10th of 1% which is about .00001% of the total atmosphere.

What is the "ideal" temperature of the earth?

What is there to say that the climate of today is the way it is supposed to be forever and is the "best"?

Why is it that so much faith is being put on the models of the "climate chaos," as the French PM referred to it, when the data upon which these models are based cannot predict current climate conditions when using historical data?

Just curious.

deestafford
26609
Points
deestafford 05/25/14 - 09:32 pm
3
0
It's my understanding that the fundamental essence....

It is my understanding that the fundamental essence of science is skepticism and without skepticism you have no science---all you have is religion.

I have read, I wasn't directly involved so I can depend on only what I have read, is that Einstein published his theory of relativity and then sent all his data to all the other physicists asking them to critique his theory and send it back to him. He then took their critiques and reworked his theory numerous times until no scientist had any further critiques.

If the science is so "settled" an the "97%" are so firm and proud of their positions why don't they follow ol' Albert's process and open up rather than calling those thousands who disagree all kinds of vile names?

Gage Creed
16786
Points
Gage Creed 05/25/14 - 09:43 pm
1
0
John Holdren..... need anyone

John Holdren..... need anyone say more?

stuaby
3691
Points
stuaby 05/25/14 - 10:08 pm
5
0
This whole climate change

This whole climate change business is like the mafia. The mafia strongarms defenseless people near them, but don't do anything to people elsewhere.

We taxpayers in the West have the global warming mafia to strongarm us, via politicians through extra taxes. All while the Chinese (soon to be the worlds #1 economy?), the Russians, the OPEC countries, the Indians don't give a rat's sass about this nonsense. They're all cranking full speed ahead. They HAVE to be laughing their butts off at Western countries fretting over this mirage of an issue.

Gage Creed
16786
Points
Gage Creed 05/25/14 - 10:25 pm
4
0
stuaby wins!!!! Exactly my

stuaby wins!!!!

Exactly my thoughts.....

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs