Global Warming is over.

[ForcedFirebird]

Even the scientists can't agree. Depends on which acronym you follow/believe. At one time the earth was much hotter than it is now and supported life. It was also much colder than now...and supported life. "How much impact we have" is the underlying issue. Anyone who doesn't see the trend of gluttonous human consumption is blind. Be an interesting place if/when the mighty EMP hits and we are all zombie cannibals who can't grow food, right? Amazing how many "advocates" and "activists" drive their Prius or Volt to Wally World and purchase a cart full of items form a country driven by burning coal.

It's also amazing how lost this generation is without technology, too. "Hey what does [insert search engine here] say? It must be true, I read it on the internet."

[cale]

so cale and brave, do you both agree the science is settled, that there is such a thing as "settled science"?

I don't claim it is, I just poke holes in the bullshit you present, or at least used to. Now it seems you'd rather argue broadly by discussing the ethics, my guess because you're not informed enough to get into specifics. This assumption is made because..

and anthropogenic global warming is being disproved almost daily with the lack of confirming data to support the mathematical global warming models from the alarmist scientists.

and that is the point, no? there is no confirming data, anywhere, at all, that proves your many hypotheses that man is the driving force behind the warming that is being measured. infact there is no confirming data that supports that CO2 is the driving greenhouse gas that has caused any of the measured warming.

To make such bold absolute claims such as no data exists which supports AGW is to proudly present yourself as an unequivocal moron. There is so much data, that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not even bother themselves with the nonsensical individuals you subscribe to.

Does this mean it's settled? Nope, but to suggest there exists no data to supports it and then go on to ramble about hockey stick graphs and other buzz phrases because you're incapable of discussing the science proves you're an ill informed ignoramus.

[flyboyx]

I don't claim it is, I just poke holes in the bullshit you present, or at least used to. Now it seems you'd rather argue broadly by discussing the ethics, my guess because you're not informed enough to get into specifics. This assumption is made because..



To make such bold absolute claims such as no data exists which supports AGW is to proudly present yourself as an unequivocal moron. There is so much data, that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not even bother themselves with the nonsensical individuals you subscribe to.

Does this mean it's settled? Nope, but to suggest there exists no data to supports it and then go on to ramble about hockey stick graphs and other buzz phrases because you're incapable of discussing the science proves you're an ill informed ignoramus.

[BraveUlysses]

I don't claim it is, I just poke holes in the bullshit you present, or at least used to. Now it seems you'd rather argue broadly by discussing the ethics, my guess because you're not informed enough to get into specifics. This assumption is made because..



To make such bold absolute claims such as no data exists which supports AGW is to proudly present yourself as an unequivocal moron. There is so much data, that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists do not even bother themselves with the nonsensical individuals you subscribe to.

Does this mean it's settled? Nope, but to suggest there exists no data to supports it and then go on to ramble about hockey stick graphs and other buzz phrases because you're incapable of discussing the science proves you're an ill informed ignoramus.

good post

it's not that i'm even a huge AGW proponent, just anti-bullshit and lyin george is pretty busy making shit up.

I have no doubt that humans will overpopulate and fuck this planet to death in 100 years or less.

[decay]

Amazing how many "advocates" and "activists" drive their Prius or Volt to Wally World and purchase a cart full of items form a country driven by burning coal.

Being media-educated is not any better than being google-educated.

Hey did you know that pollution is easier to control and manage when the sources are numbered in dozens, rather than millions? And that the two approaches don't produce the same *amount* of pollution in the first place?

Said something similar to sleeve in the Standing Rock thread. Enthusiasts like you and I, or people who hit the field like he and I? Yeah we need petrol. Nobody (who is actually relevant to the conversation) is suggesting taking these things away.

Hairdressers, secretaries, and soccer moms give no fucks about what the power plant for their vehicle is- they want A-to-B. EVs are comfortable and quiet and easy to drive. Give those bitches some EVs. Bitches love EVs.

[gwb72tii]

so sorry but you don't get your own set of facts

since the global warming/climate change movement started CO2 has been the bogeyman, the reason for global warming, and it has been because of man, anthropogenic

that has been the global warming movement's hypothesis

CO2 has risen considerably

the anthro climate science math models have failed miserably to predict the lack of warming even though CO2 has continued to rise

and at the end of the day, all the anthro crowd has is math models, incorrect as they are, which means the hypothesis that rising CO2 is the driver of the little warming that has been occurring is wrong. it has to be something else, or CO2 climate sensitivity is considerably less than the anthro crowd tells us

so what happens? NASA corrects the actual physical temperature recordings downwards in the past to eliminate the 20 year pause in warming (a pause even the anthro crowd admits to).

ice core data shows CO2 rising AFTER global warming, not before. and global temps have been cooler in the past with higher levels of CO2 than are present today.

so you basically yell at anyone that doesn't buy into the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scare.

i site NASA data showing record global cooling after the latest el nino, and it is criticized because it's on a skeptic website (where else would you find it?), even though it's NASA's own data.

and i'm the quasi-religious one for questioning the science? LOL

[gwb72tii]

Being media-educated is not any better than being google-educated.

Hey did you know that pollution is easier to control and manage when the sources are numbered in dozens, rather than millions? And that the two approaches don't produce the same *amount* of pollution in the first place?

Said something similar to sleeve in the Standing Rock thread. Enthusiasts like you and I, or people who hit the field like he and I? Yeah we need petrol. Nobody (who is actually relevant to the conversation) is suggesting taking these things away.

Hairdressers, secretaries, and soccer moms give no fucks about what the power plant for their vehicle is- they want A-to-B. EVs are comfortable and quiet and easy to drive. Give those bitches some EVs. Bitches love EVs.

EV's do little to nothing to reduce pollution when you consider the power plant's electricity generation

[BraveUlysses]

so what happens? NASA corrects the actual physical temperature recordings downwards in the past to eliminate the 20 year pause in warming (a pause even the anthro crowd admits to).

https://skepticalscience.com/understanding-adjustments-to-temp-data.html

ice core data shows CO2 rising AFTER global warming, not before. and global temps have been cooler in the past with higher levels of CO2 than are present today.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

so you basically yell at anyone that doesn't buy into the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming scare.

we yell at liars like you george

[gwb72tii]

the skepticalscience blog is not scientifically credible
all i said is fact

well i think you'll get your day in the sunshine soon brave
the epa will more than likely force the warmist science into the limelight for all to see.
imagine scientists on the fed funding gravy train having to show actual data that supports their respective hypotheses to continue getting funded

[BraveUlysses]

the skepticalscience blog is not scientifically credible
all i said is fact

well i think you'll get your day in the sunshine soon brave
the epa will more than likely force the warmist science into the limelight for all to see.
imagine scientists on the fed funding gravy train having to show actual data that supports their respective hypotheses to continue getting funded

it's not credible but skeptic blogs that you regurgitate without even linking are credible, right?

hahhahahahaha just stop, go see your doctor about your worsening dementia

[ForcedFirebird]

I was on the understanding methane was the bigger scare than co2?

[decay]

EV's do little to nothing to reduce pollution when you consider the power plant's electricity generation

You sure about that, champ?

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/a24372/las-vegas-renewable-energy/

(inb4 "popular mechanics is just a left-wing shill site")

[ForcedFirebird]

Being media-educated is not any better than being google-educated.

Hey did you know that pollution is easier to control and manage when the sources are numbered in dozens, rather than millions? And that the two approaches don't produce the same *amount* of pollution in the first place?

Said something similar to sleeve in the Standing Rock thread. Enthusiasts like you and I, or people who hit the field like he and I? Yeah we need petrol. Nobody (who is actually relevant to the conversation) is suggesting taking these things away.

Hairdressers, secretaries, and soccer moms give no fucks about what the power plant for their vehicle is- they want A-to-B. EVs are comfortable and quiet and easy to drive. Give those bitches some EVs. Bitches love EVs.

Missed this post somehow. Compare us petrol heads to a cargo ship lane then? You hit that nail for sure with the media and google educated lol. Long gone are the days of print books and school of hard knocks. Forums are a great example. Bad information spreads quickly and isn't easily extinguished. Things were different 20yr ago. When you had to work on a car you had never pulled apart, you were forced to either figure it out, read a book, or ask someone with more experience than you. Now everyone goes to the internet first.

Had a young man working in my shop, when he was stumped, he would hit the internet. More often than not, a DMM, experimentation, or just plain logical thought would have solved the problem quicker than he was finished reading the first page of something. He would get livid when I would walk over and take care of it in minutes after he had been wasting time for half hour.

[cale]

the skepticalscience blog is not scientifically credible

You are capable of reading are you not, you should be able to click on any one of the sources listed on that website and find actual scientific literature straight from the sources to back up the material presented on the website.

Or are you really so willfully ignorant that you intentionally look over referenced literature?

[E30 Wagen]

Climate change skeptics need to spend time working in a high volume manufacturing environment to give them a sense of how tiny changes in a closed system contribute to irregularities that could only be measured over a relatively long time scale. I think what fuels most skepticism, besides mistrusting scientists and disputes over what exactly a climate irregularity is, is the idea that the length and intensity of human activity so far is insignificant in comparison to eons of climate fluctuations. So, what's happening is that any current climate data that might reflect the impact of human activity isn't taken seriously because in the big picture it's not conclusive, especially if there is historical, pre-human data that correlates with today's readings. I would just ask skeptics to consider the perspective that all of human activity since recorded history is in fact a notable change to earth's closed climate system. Deforestation, urban sprawl, chemical spills, smog, and so on, don't happen by themselves, and the effects of such occurrences have measurable impacts on their surrounding environments.

It's not a perfect analogy, but consider a metal-forming manufacturing process that's supposed to produce hundreds of thousands of parts. There are going to be specific tolerances in the dimensions of the final product that are consistently monitored, charted and controlled. Anybody familiar with SPC will know what I'm talking about. It can be predicted that there are going to be normal fluctuations in the final part dimensions due to raw material discrepancies which can be controlled with tooling adjustments if needed. The interesting (and frustrating) thing that can happen is when the chart starts indicating a trend toward a dimension limit and the decision of whether or not to make a tooling adjustment should be made. This can open up a big can of worms when all tooling adjustments fail to bring the part back in "control." If all prior data predicts that the adjustment should have worked, then there must be a problem somewhere else. Maybe the root cause is as simple as a bolt being loose so the tooling isn't functioning how it was designed. But, if it's decided not to make a tooling adjustment and after some time the dimension mysteriously goes back in control on its own, then the root cause is never found and the statistical data is then regarded as normal behavior. This logic is pretty much always disastrous.

Bottom line is that I think we should trust the overwhelming consensus of climatologists and data analysts because when it comes to the "SPC" of our earth's climate, they know more about this than people like gwb72tii.