Global Warming is over.

[herbivor]

It is true that climatologists may discover evidence that determines the current global warming trends are not man-made. I would hope they do. It is also true that archaeologists may find evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. You cannot disprove a negative. However, their is overwhelming evidence (by which I mean real scientific evidence and not propaganda) that current Global Warming trends are, if not all, at least partially due by man and there is also enough prior and current evidence to determine statistically within a margin of error what the impact will be. Now statistically speaking, even the most conservative side of the bell curve (look it up if you are having trouble following) predicts some pretty drastic climatic changes that will impact many people's living situation pretty dramatically.

When the science and the math and the evidence is overwhelming, it is the duty of people to act responsibly. When a meteorolgists tells you a class 5 hurricane is about to destroy your home, you don't argue whether it may be a only a class 2 or 3 or whether a hurricane is coming at all and play the odds everthing will be ok. You get the fuck out of there.
The wind is blowing my friend. You just need to open the door an look around.

[nando]

in other news - I'm seriously contemplating installing solar. If I do it this year, I can get a full setup for about $30k, a $10k tax rebate, and get paid about 54c per khw. and the panels are made right here in town (WA gives you a bonus if you use locally made panels). Even up here the payback is only 5-6 years, and the 1% loan will easily be paid for every month by the electric bill that will drop from $100 to zero or negative.

the panels are supposed to last 25 years and should produce ~500kwh a month (based on a guy I know locally with a 9x2 array from the same company). you sign a contract for the 54c per kwh for the next 10 years, so after the loan is paid off you're basically looking at making a good chunk of change. and no power bills.

the question is, will it work on my house? do I qualify for the loans? we'll see..

[cale]

, a $10k tax rebate

*grumpyoldconservativevoice* "why should my taxes go to supporting your choice to believe all the AGW propaganda and install useless panels?!"

[nando]

so WA state can export more power to the environazis in California :p

[Jon325i]

so WA state can export more power to the environazis in California :p

Dear Washington state,

Your electricity is much appreciated. We could just hug you like a tree.

Kind Regards,
California

[herbivor]

Latest article from the Science Daily:
High-Arctic Heat Tops 1,800-Year High, Says Study; Modern Spike Outmatches Naturally Driven 'Medieval Warm Period

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1001095903.htm

The naturally driven Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250, has been a favorite time for people who deny evidence that humans are heating the planet with industrial greenhouse gases. But the climate reconstruction from Svalbard casts new doubt on that era's reach, and undercuts skeptics who argue that current warming is also natural. Since 1987, summers on Svalbard have been 2 degrees to 2.5 degrees C (3.6 to 4.5 degrees F) hotter than they were there during warmest parts of the Medieval Warm Period, the study found.

[Fusion]

Oh, ok, so skeptics can't point to the Medieval warm period, but when warming advocates need it for comparison, it suddenly becomes useful?

[nando]

Did you read the story?

here, I'll quote it again:

The naturally driven Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250, has been a favorite time for people who deny evidence that humans are heating the planet with industrial greenhouse gases. But the climate reconstruction from Svalbard casts new doubt on that era's reach, and undercuts skeptics who argue that current warming is also natural.

[herbivor]

He obviously didn't read it. Here is another quote from the article.

"The Medieval Warm Period was not as uniformly warm as we once thought--we can start calling it the Medieval Period again," said the study's lead author, William D'Andrea, a climate scientist at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. "Our record indicates that recent summer temperatures on Svalbard are greater than even the warmest periods at that time."

[gwb72tii]

So now we have one "skeptic" saying there was no warm period when it's settled science that there was
Rofl

[joshh]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

Seems as though when there are changes to the religion of Global Warming that don't jive with the rhetoric it doesn't get media attention.

[Fusion]

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.

But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.

The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.

I don't have to requote everything I've been writing in this thread, do I?

[herbivor]

I'm looking forward to this October 23. The question is, if it it doesn't fit your current views, will you just consider it bias, or could it possibly change your mind?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Four years ago, climate change was a hot issue and politicians from both sides seemed poised to act. Today public opinion on the climate issue has cooled considerably. Politicians either ignore it or proclaim their skepticism. What’s behind this massive reversal? On Oct 23, FRONTLINE goes inside the organizations that fought the scientific establishment to shift the direction of the climate debate.

[nando]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...-prove-it.html

Seems as though when there are changes to the religion of Global Warming that don't jive with the rhetoric it doesn't get media attention.

the reasoning behind this "study" is hilariously flawed. the last decade was the hottest on record. 1.5 years of temperatures staying basically the same doesn't erase a trend. it's so stupid it's not worth arguing over.

At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.

gee, imagine that. right wing wackos who think creationism is a science also think climate change is a hoax. news at 11.

oh wait, the article linked above said it was real. at the bottom. so is it real or is it fake?

I don't have to requote everything I've been writing in this thread, do I?

apparently not since you seem to have found a website that parrots your own beliefs.

[Fusion]

the reasoning behind this "study" is hilariously flawed. the last decade was the hottest on record. 1.5 years of temperatures staying basically the same doesn't erase a trend. it's so stupid it's not worth arguing over.

Hottest on record in comparison to what? Which data set? What time period? I don't see a point in arguing over .xyz°, but sadly its what everyone is doing.
The point isn't in that the temp changed hundreths of a degree in some certain period that seems confirmatory for either side. The most important message, one that even MO scientists are carefully wording and dancing around, is that they themselves cannot confirm certain data, do not yet understand certain natural processes, and therefore any future prediction is even more absurd than predicting baseball game results.

I will gladly watch the PBS doc, even though I have been told many times in this thread to ignore and not base any opinion on information from any media source, because they are all biased and/or partisan. We can probably expect examples of lobbying againt AGW, which I can't and don't need to refute, but I am very interested to see if there is any example of Eco lobbying and subsequent drainage of tax dollars, the introduction of bully laws/fees/taxes, and the inevitable rise of energy prices, which basically leads to the rise of all prices. All of which may introduce good new solutions, but without showing positive effect on the environment and at a price that is forcefully set upon us to pay.
Every coin has two sides.