ADVERTISEMENT

the truth about climate change

Great article. Will be ignored by alarmists and they will continue to make false claims and call anyone who sees the facts a denier who hates science or is too dumb to understand it.
 
the truth is: I was told when I was a little kid that by the time I was 40, oil would be gone and both cali and NYC would be in the ocean. and that's the truth. that's what I was told. now I'm nearly 50 and neither of these have happened.

it's a shame what these kids are being told now in school

the millennials are starting to catch on to the lies
 
No one has ever convinced me the advantage of "debunking" climate change. Alternative energy and other footprint reductions are ultimately good things for so many reasons it doesn't matter to me why we're doing it (provided policies make sense).

I guess the concern is the government will overreact? If that's the case it suprises me people can be so hateful towards warming believers. There seems to be very little difference in that camp to the folks that think the world is coming to an end.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ParkerHawk
No one has ever convinced me the advantage of "debunking" climate change. Alternative energy and other footprint reductions are ultimately good things for so many reasons it doesn't matter to me why we're doing it (provided policies make sense).

I guess the concern is the government will overreact? If that's the case it suprises me people can be so hateful towards warming believers. There seems to be very little difference in that camp to the folks that think the world is coming to an end.

Absolutely this. I have always felt that hey, 97% of scientists say it is so. Then the republican circle jerk in this thread clamors on and on about it. This is what I don't get. Even if the 3% are right, why isn't a change to renewable energy applauded and encouraged? Outside of ethanol, which I think is going to really haunt farmers.

Less dependence on foreign oil. Less use for wars in the middle east. Arguing against wind and solar seems so...ridiculous , birds aside. I have an issue with birds at the moment, as finches are crapping all over my car. Anyways, can someone explain to me the downside of solar and wind?

I don't know how the government can overreact on this, outside of the energy lobbyists claiming that the infrastructure would fall apart. Every home should be self sufficient, and we have the technology to do so.
 
Brent, read the article. The author goes into the 97% discussion. The 97% represents 79 scientists. There is a 2nd poll and the number is 52% in that poll.

I agree that the practical solutions are to move away from fossil fuels to alternative forms of energy over time. More efficient human living. The issue is that the liberals have made it a power grab and a redistribution of wealth issue.
 
Brent, read the article. The author goes into the 97% discussion. The 97% represents 79 scientists. There is a 2nd poll and the number is 52% in that poll.

I agree that the practical solutions are to move away from fossil fuels to alternative forms of energy over time. More efficient human living. The issue is that the liberals have made it a power grab and a redistribution of wealth issue.
I don't know that I need to read the article to know the argument put forth. If someone thinks that pouring tons of smoke into the atmosphere every single day doesn't have an effect on the planet, then I can't have a reasonable conversation with them. Scientist or not. We pride ourselves in Iowa on common sense. This seems so obvious that it's hard for me to believe there is an argument.

I'd really like to you to explain to me, like I'm five years old, how it's a power grab. Whoever is in power, I would hope they would encourage this. I guess it is a redistribution of wealth, in the sense that we won't be subject to oil barons, as we have since rockefeller. Ike warned us, and it's come to pass. Not trying to attack you, just wondering the mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Personally I think the science is inconclusive and has been shown that it can/has been manipulated...

That being said, there's nothing wrong with being good stewards of the environment.
That's the whole damn point. I'll burn this planet to the ground, because I don't have any kids. People with children should be upset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
I also agree that we need to be good stewards of the environment. No argument there.
And wouldn't doing that mean we regulate the pollutants we put into the environment? Its bizarre how many get all worked up over the GW issue when they instinctively know the environmentalists are right about the big picture.

Does it really matter why a person doesn't want more coal plants? Be it GW, black lung disease, acid rain, ugly scarring of the landscape or pollution of the groundwater, coal is bad. So stop fighting people working to eliminate coal just because you disagree about their reasoning. They are your allies.
 
Littering-103559108331_xlarge.jpeg



The left drives down the street and sees someone throw a Styrofoam cup out their car window: "Look, more evidence of climate change."

Pollution is real. CAGW is a THEORY. A weak one at best. A politically motivated one at likeliest.

5fda09cc4b7e4f6499545a14be415126.jpg
 
Last edited:
And wouldn't doing that mean we regulate the pollutants we put into the environment? Its bizarre how many get all worked up over the GW issue when they instinctively know the environmentalists are right about the big picture.

Does it really matter why a person doesn't want more coal plants? Be it GW, black lung disease, acid rain, ugly scarring of the landscape or pollution of the groundwater, coal is bad. So stop fighting people working to eliminate coal just because you disagree about their reasoning. They are your allies.


Actually I'm very involved in employee's health at coal generation facilities. Steps are taken to protect employees.
 
the truth is: I was told when I was a little kid that by the time I was 40, oil would be gone and both cali and NYC would be in the ocean. and that's the truth. that's what I was told. now I'm nearly 50 and neither of these have happened.

it's a shame what these kids are being told now in school

the millennials are starting to catch on to the lies


well you are from ottumwa so who knows what other crazy shit that they think there. i am in my early 40's and was never told anything like this in school.
 
  • Like
Reactions: naturalmwa
Absolutely this. I have always felt that hey, 97% of scientists say it is so. Then the republican circle jerk in this thread clamors on and on about it. This is what I don't get. Even if the 3% are right, why isn't a change to renewable energy applauded and encouraged? Outside of ethanol, which I think is going to really haunt farmers.

Less dependence on foreign oil. Less use for wars in the middle east. Arguing against wind and solar seems so...ridiculous , birds aside. I have an issue with birds at the moment, as finches are crapping all over my car. Anyways, can someone explain to me the downside of solar and wind?

I don't know how the government can overreact on this, outside of the energy lobbyists claiming that the infrastructure would fall apart. Every home should be self sufficient, and we have the technology to do so.
didn't read the article eh?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRiscool
Brent, read the article. The author goes into the 97% discussion. The 97% represents 79 scientists. There is a 2nd poll and the number is 52% in that poll.

I agree that the practical solutions are to move away from fossil fuels to alternative forms of energy over time. More efficient human living. The issue is that the liberals have made it a power grab and a redistribution of wealth issue.
This deserves a repost.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRiscool
I don't know that I need to read the article to know the argument put forth. If someone thinks that pouring tons of smoke into the atmosphere every single day doesn't have an effect on the planet, then I can't have a reasonable conversation with them. Scientist or not. We pride ourselves in Iowa on common sense. This seems so obvious that it's hard for me to believe there is an argument.

I'd really like to you to explain to me, like I'm five years old, how it's a power grab. Whoever is in power, I would hope they would encourage this. I guess it is a redistribution of wealth, in the sense that we won't be subject to oil barons, as we have since rockefeller. Ike warned us, and it's come to pass. Not trying to attack you, just wondering the mindset.
You'd like us to "explain it to (you) like (you're) five years old. Yet you didn't read the article that explains exactly that. Seriously?

Do you know how dishonest and idiotic you sound? This article is written exactly for people like you.

READ THE ARTICLE. I know that is hard as you (and every other leftist with an agenda) don't want to because it might hurt your argument. (This is all explained in this article BTW).

READ THE ARTICLE. You and naturalmwa
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRiscool
And wouldn't doing that mean we regulate the pollutants we put into the environment? Its bizarre how many get all worked up over the GW issue when they instinctively know the environmentalists are right about the big picture.

Does it really matter why a person doesn't want more coal plants? Be it GW, black lung disease, acid rain, ugly scarring of the landscape or pollution of the groundwater, coal is bad. So stop fighting people working to eliminate coal just because you disagree about their reasoning. They are your allies.
Did YOU read the article?
 
Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

"In the media, it was being called a theory. Obviously, they didn't know what it means to be a theory," says Cunningham who has a B.S. in Physics (with honors) from University of California at Los Angeles and an M.S., with distinction; Institute of Geophysics And Planetary Sciences, with completed work on Doctorate in physics with exception of thesis.

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."

http://m.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/cra...t=socialflow&utm_campaign=B-astronaut-climate
 
Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

"Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
 
You'd like us to "explain it to (you) like (you're) five years old. Yet you didn't read the article that explains exactly that. Seriously?

Do you know how dishonest and idiotic you sound? This article is written exactly for people like you.

READ THE ARTICLE. I know that is hard as you (and every other leftist with an agenda) don't want to because it might hurt your argument. (This is all explained in this article BTW).

READ THE ARTICLE. You and naturalmwa

LAZY = not reading = flunking out of school = unemployed sheep = occupy movement = the LEFT
 
Weird!?? They just all ran away.

brentdiekman, naturalmwa and hawkandawe? did you read it? Where is Red? WWJD?
 
Weird!?? They just all ran away.

brentdiekman, naturalmwa and hawkandawe? did you read it? Where is Red? WWJD?

I've gotten into the habit of posting the content of links. I learned the hard way the left doesn't click on links. That would require work. Work = Kryptonite to the left.
 
Terrific article. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the people on this board who really should read it will never do so.

To be fair the ones you're referring to have a learning disability. It's not their fault reading is a struggle.
 
Terrific article. Thanks for the link. Unfortunately, the people on this board who really should read it will never do so.
"Terrific"???

It's simply loaded with disinformation, innuendo and false comparisons.

Let's focus on the 'no warming for the past 15 years'. This is a myth that the result of 'cherry picked' dates, and can be shown to be completely untrue when using a scientifically valid approach to looking at the data.

This website has several global temperature datasets that you can enter in your own timeframes, filtering ranges, etc to observe the data for yourself:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

This site lets you interactively create your plots, and then you can link those data plots directly, which is really pretty cool.

Looking at the HADCRUT4 global temperature series, the way you can actually see trends is by running an averaging filter to smooth out the noise, which often hides true trends.

Here is HADCRUT4 global mean without ANY running filter:

hadcrut4gl


The amount of seasonal and annual variation creates a rather big mess and it becomes difficult for the human eye/brain to see trends.

To make trend-spotting easier, you can run a 10-year (decadal) average (just boxcar 120 months of data together), but this can often create misleading inversions at certain points along the plot. Instead, you run 2 or 3 sub-decadal averaging filters that 'sum up' to the 120 months (e.g. 29, 39, 52 months averages) in sequence, and you eliminate the 'local inversions' which often skew the information over short time frames. (FWIW, Judith Curry has a website and page which details this method. Yes, the Judith Curry who is the AGW 'skeptic').

Here is that link, where the 'local errors' that smoothers create are described:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/

Here is what the HADCRUT4 data looks like with the decadal averaging (each data point represents one month of data, so 120 points = 10 years):

none


If we 'zoom in' from 1980 on, you can see what the past decade really looks like:

from:1980


The green line uses the 'simple' decadal average, which just uses the single running filter - this creates the misleading inversions that Curry explains are artifacts of that method, and are not a good averaging method. The red line uses sequential running mean filters that 'add up' to a decadal filter, but to a better job of showing the true local trends. The red line uses the method recommended by Curry's site.

It is quite easy to see from this plot that we have, AT MOST, a 5-year hiatus in warming (red line). The green line (using the method Curry does NOT recommend) is even worse (because this method generates local inversions and biases that are 'not real', but an artifact of the filtering)

The reason the graph only runs to 2010 is because the data point for that decadal average (2005-2015) is plotted at the 2010 data point. Since we don't have data points out to 2020 yet, we will not know what the 2015 decadal average data point looks like until 2020. But it is quite easy to see that there is nothing CLOSE to any '15 year' or '18 year' hiatus. A '15 year hiatus' means that the data point on the running mean for 1995 is 'equal to' the data point at 2010. It is not remotely close.

Look at the running graph from the 1880's on; there is simply nothing close to a 'recent hiatus' in the data yet; at least nothing that is a deviation any bigger than anywhere else along the historical record. You can find a 'hiatus' just about as long from 1989 to 1995....

Go visit the site and look at the data for yourself. Make your own plots, using running means.
If you want a decadal averaging filter, use mean ranges of 29, 39, 52 in sequence. If you want a 'true' 17 year running mean, use 49, 66, 88.

Here is the GISTEMP dT global mean dataset, using the same decadal filter:

mean:52


Again, no 'hiatus'. You can look at the BEST dataset, MSS, UAH etc and you cannot identify clear hiatus trends in any global datasets (note that some datasets are 'land only' and thus only represent 30% of the full temperature dataset for all of the Earth).

There are countless other fallacies and errors in that article, too many to debunk in one post.
 
Weird!?? They just all ran away.

brentdiekman, naturalmwa and hawkandawe? did you read it? Where is Red? WWJD?

Nothing I posted refers to the article. I skimmed it and it seemed well written.

I was referring to the first few posts of the thread and the general back and forth of this board on the topic. I just don't follow the hatred and name calling that accompanies this debate (on both sides).

Im smart enough to know I'm not smart enough to understand mans impact on its environment. But I'm also a strong advocate for progress and believe finding new ways to create energy is of vital importance. It just seems like everyone's heads are in the sand
 
there is a difference between being a good steward of the environment and telling lies and making up fake science to advance your own political career and to put money in your pocket, the two are not related at all
What political aspirations does Obama have?
 
"Terrific"???

It's simply loaded with disinformation, innuendo and false comparisons.

Let's focus on the 'no warming for the past 15 years'. This is a myth that the result of 'cherry picked' dates, and can be shown to be completely untrue when using a scientifically valid approach to looking at the data.

This website has several global temperature datasets that you can enter in your own timeframes, filtering ranges, etc to observe the data for yourself:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/

This site lets you interactively create your plots, and then you can link those data plots directly, which is really pretty cool.

Looking at the HADCRUT4 global temperature series, the way you can actually see trends is by running an averaging filter to smooth out the noise, which often hides true trends.

Here is HADCRUT4 global mean without ANY running filter:

hadcrut4gl


The amount of seasonal and annual variation creates a rather big mess and it becomes difficult for the human eye/brain to see trends.

To make trend-spotting easier, you can run a 10-year (decadal) average (just boxcar 120 months of data together), but this can often create misleading inversions at certain points along the plot. Instead, you run 2 or 3 sub-decadal averaging filters that 'sum up' to the 120 months (e.g. 29, 39, 52 months averages) in sequence, and you eliminate the 'local inversions' which often skew the information over short time frames. (FWIW, Judith Curry has a website and page which details this method. Yes, the Judith Curry who is the AGW 'skeptic').

Here is that link, where the 'local errors' that smoothers create are described:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/11/22/data-corruption-by-running-mean-smoothers/

Here is what the HADCRUT4 data looks like with the decadal averaging (each data point represents one month of data, so 120 points = 10 years):

none


If we 'zoom in' from 1980 on, you can see what the past decade really looks like:

from:1980


The green line uses the 'simple' decadal average, which just uses the single running filter - this creates the misleading inversions that Curry explains are artifacts of that method, and are not a good averaging method. The red line uses sequential running mean filters that 'add up' to a decadal filter, but to a better job of showing the true local trends. The red line uses the method recommended by Curry's site.

It is quite easy to see from this plot that we have, AT MOST, a 5-year hiatus in warming (red line). The green line (using the method Curry does NOT recommend) is even worse (because this method generates local inversions and biases that are 'not real', but an artifact of the filtering)

The reason the graph only runs to 2010 is because the data point for that decadal average (2005-2015) is plotted at the 2010 data point. Since we don't have data points out to 2020 yet, we will not know what the 2015 decadal average data point looks like until 2020. But it is quite easy to see that there is nothing CLOSE to any '15 year' or '18 year' hiatus. A '15 year hiatus' means that the data point on the running mean for 1995 is 'equal to' the data point at 2010. It is not remotely close.

Look at the running graph from the 1880's on; there is simply nothing close to a 'recent hiatus' in the data yet; at least nothing that is a deviation any bigger than anywhere else along the historical record. You can find a 'hiatus' just about as long from 1989 to 1995....

Go visit the site and look at the data for yourself. Make your own plots, using running means.
If you want a decadal averaging filter, use mean ranges of 29, 39, 52 in sequence. If you want a 'true' 17 year running mean, use 49, 66, 88.

Here is the GISTEMP dT global mean dataset, using the same decadal filter:

mean:52


Again, no 'hiatus'. You can look at the BEST dataset, MSS, UAH etc and you cannot identify clear hiatus trends in any global datasets (note that some datasets are 'land only' and thus only represent 30% of the full temperature dataset for all of the Earth).

There are countless other fallacies and errors in that article, too many to debunk in one post.
You could have just said, you like neat websites and pretty pictures and left it at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRiscool
Nothing I posted refers to the article. I skimmed it and it seemed well written.

I was referring to the first few posts of the thread and the general back and forth of this board on the topic. I just don't follow the hatred and name calling that accompanies this debate (on both sides).

Im smart enough to know I'm not smart enough to understand mans impact on its environment. But I'm also a strong advocate for progress and believe finding new ways to create energy is of vital importance. It just seems like everyone's heads are in the sand

You know what else you're smart enough to know? That everyone has an agenda. And when some scientists beholden to gov't authorities call for an end to peer review on a topic, it's pretty clear who has their head in the sand.
 
What political aspirations does Obama have?
you are joking, right? he wakes up and all he does is political aspirations... I fully expect him to be head of the un or king of the new world order when he leaves office, if he ever leaves office, this guy will never leave us alone
 
ADVERTISEMENT