Government is the wrong custodian of environmental Education and implementation. It does not matter which party is in control, they other party will claim the issue is being politicized. (Not enough trust in system)
People will accept sacrifices if the out come or end result is achievable. Neither side has shown results of current efforts having a positive impact on the state problem. (Not enough trust in plan)
We are not doing enough and that is why we are not seeing or hearing about measurable changes in global climate change. But more policies, Regulation, tax dollars and fines will get us there.. That sounds a lot like - We've done a lot of work on your car to get it back to running right, and have not found the exact cause for the poor running condition. But with a little more money and time we'll get there. (Not enough trust in the Mechanic)
The Government is split on climate change The People are split on climate change The Scientist (supposedly) agree on climate change
They all agree "the climate remains unchanged" Both have their climate mantras and it is exactly the same -
We have no affect and "climate keeps doing what it does" We have an affect and "climate keeps doing what it does"
After all the money and regulations the weather still disobeys. The only successes that are pointed to when the "justification" for Environmental policies, are in the areas of air quality, water pollution and food contamination. But global temperatures? not a reference to a care guidenada
The best way to move society in any direction continues to be by the "carrot and stick" method. Government grants issued to organizations and companies who produce the best measurable results, not only provides an incentive but also establishes accountability for their results. The public outcry would demand brutal penalties for "bad or fraudulent" results. With methods of reward for results, they will continue to allow their politics to influence their findings, but they will also pay a price when "politics" contaminated their results.
The age of Baffling the public with BS should be ended and replaced with a show me the results expectation.
The primary reason we should stop publicly funding climate change studies come from the climate change scientist themselves. "It's Settled Science"
So it's time to shift the cost of climate change studies back private groups, industries and individuals and redirect that portion of federal funding to incentivize results.
So You guys who claim it's settled science, you win. I agree. And now it's time to get results.
That's not proof.. It's not yet been proven.. It's not "settled science".
?
What would it look like if there were "proof" that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the most significant cause of recent and current global warming, and that global temperatures could be capped or limited (close to their current levels) by achieving reductions in the amount of human greenhouse gas emissions worldwide?
How would someone who is coming at this from the same general direction of skepticism as Hudini be able to know that it had moved from conjecture or hypothesis, all the way to "proven" or "settled science"..?
It would be interesting (I think) for me to get a clearer understanding of what the skeptics consider to be the more reliable sources of information that firm up their perceptions that all this has not yet been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Just for the sake of discussion. I am not an activist or a campaigner of any kind. My personal outlay for political contributions (PACs, candidates, projects, organizations; etc.) is very minimal. Of course, all I have (fundamentally) are my own opinions about it. I claim no particularly relevant scientific credentials.
If the evidence for all this is only suggestive, but not conclusive--not yet proven--have the skeptics had any thoughts about what are the likely trends for the global distribution of heat and temperatures, as CO2 and other gases from human activities continue to be emitted into the atmosphere at or above the current rate of emissions from all around the globe?
In other words, if human greenhouse gas emissions are not already the most significant cause of recent and current global warming, what is the fallout if these kinds of gas molecules continue to be released into the atmosphere for an indefinite period ahead, at flow rates into the atmosphere that match or exceed the current levels? Will this then become the most significant cause of global warming in the not very distant future--well before the end of the current century, and within the lifetimes of some of the younger members of this forum?
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-18-2017).]
You are virtue signaling, that's all. I'd bet money you and everyone of the alarmists live the very same way you have always lived. You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Have you done your part to reduce your carbon footprint or are you just throwing stones in your glass house?
You are virtue signaling, that's all. I'd bet money you and everyone of the alarmists live the very same way you have always lived. You talk the talk, but do you walk the walk? Have you done your part to reduce your carbon footprint or are you just throwing stones in your glass house?
Reduce, definitely. Am I doing enough? Probably not. There's always work to be done and it's a balance when it comes to cost vs benefit at a personal level but we all know it doesn't change the science and that policy changes from Governments are the key to change in this regard.
I believe China are working towards change as they see the effects of man made pollution aren't they?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-20-2017).]
Reduce, definitely. Am I doing enough? Probably not. There's always work to be done and it's a balance when it comes to cost vs benefit at a personal level but we all know it doesn't change the science and that policy changes from Governments are the key to change in this regard.
I believe China are working towards change as they see the effects of man made pollution aren't they?
Word of hard earned advice. Do not believe anything China says. Anyone who says "China is cheating" or "China isn't playing fair" does not understand the game China plays. And that game is very simple. China must win at all costs. They are very good at wordplay too. Usually it's not what they say so much as what they do not say. If they say they will reduce carbon emissions by 40% in 5 years the world cheers. However, what they don't say is that their numbers are inflated by 50% so you are not actually getting a decrease. This is OK because China must win. At all costs. It's a very simple game that the "one world government" types do not understand.
Me, I'm here to make money. When my contract is up or I hit 60 then I'm out of here as fast as my feet can carry me. My allegiance, as always, is to my family and to the USA.
Originally posted by Hudini: Word of hard earned advice. Do not believe anything China says. Anyone who says "China is cheating" or "China isn't playing fair" does not understand the game China plays. And that game is very simple. China must win at all costs. They are very good at wordplay too. Usually it's not what they say so much as what they do not say.
If they say they will reduce carbon emissions by 40% in 5 years the world cheers. However, what they don't say is that their numbers are inflated by 50% so you are not actually getting a decrease. This is OK because China must win. At all costs. It's a very simple game that the "one world government" types do not understand.
Me, I'm here to make money. When my contract is up or I hit 60 then I'm out of here as fast as my feet can carry me. My allegiance, as always, is to my family and to the USA.
I can't speak to cheating tactics that the PRC (People's Republic of China) could have up their sleeve(s), such as deceptively inflating their recent and current emissions rates. But the U.S. already has some capabilities to monitor the PRC with satellites that can track CO2 and other greenhouse gases and air pollutants all the way back to the specific cities or districts or point sources (in some cases) within the PRC that are the source of the particular kinds of emissions.
I don't want to be Mr Online Researcher about this--not at this moment--but I have to believe there are plans already in the pipeline (not the Keystone pipeline) for NASA to keep on keeping on with more and better satellites of this kind.
Of course, now that we have a new President, who knows... but I don't think that the new "powers that be" in the United States will be able to realize a "180" that completely erases all of the ideas and plans that emerged during the eight preceding years under President Obama.
These are the satellites that I was just talking about, at the very top here. Brief reports on the official NASA website.
I can't speak to cheating tactics that the PRC (People's Republic of China) could have up their sleeve(s), such as deceptively inflating their recent and current emissions rates. But the U.S. already has some capabilities to monitor the PRC with satellites that can track CO2 and other greenhouse gases and air pollutants all the way back to the specific cities or districts or point sources (in some cases) within the PRC that are the source of the particular kinds of emissions.
I don't want to be Mr Online Researcher about this--not at this moment--but I have to believe there are plans already in the pipeline (not the Keystone pipeline) for NASA to keep on keeping on with more and better satellites of this kind.
Of course, now that we have a new President, who knows... but I don't think that the new "powers that be" in the United States will be able to realize a "180" that completely erases all of the ideas and plans that emerged during the eight preceding years under President Obama.
Recently, I heard a point of view that I had not considered before. It was noted that many oil producing nations have lower emission and pollution standards compared to the United State and other Western Nations. Likewise , countries like China, who have seen an explosion in industrial development also have lower standards than The US and other Western Nations. (this much I already believed)
The argument he was making, proposed that The US and other Western Nations should cut off trade (especially imports) from countries that do not use the same standards (or higher) as we do.
Well, If it is true that - other countries are not protecting the environment at our level - companies are moving production to those countries to avoid regulations - we are importing their products because they are cheaper
It sounds like the only remedy is to stop funding the pollution of other countries by making it here where the standards are higher.
I can't speak to cheating tactics that the PRC (People's Republic of China) could have up their sleeve(s), such as deceptively inflating their recent and current emissions rates. But the U.S. already has some capabilities to monitor the PRC with satellites that can track CO2 and other greenhouse gases and air pollutants all the way back to the specific cities or districts or point sources (in some cases) within the PRC that are the source of the particular kinds of emissions.
I don't want to be Mr Online Researcher about this--not at this moment--but I have to believe there are plans already in the pipeline (not the Keystone pipeline) for NASA to keep on keeping on with more and better satellites of this kind.
Of course, now that we have a new President, who knows... but I don't think that the new "powers that be" in the United States will be able to realize a "180" that completely erases all of the ideas and plans that emerged during the eight preceding years under President Obama.
These are the satellites that I was just talking about, at the very top here. Brief reports on the official NASA website.
They have this covered already. Are you familiar with the air pollution monitoring stations in China? Well the US Embassy has one at each consulate. Amazingly, each embassy has readings that are higher than the PRCs official readings. Every single one. When questioned about it the official line is to attack the US for inaccurate numbers, or how a single source is not enough data to accurately reflect the truth, and on and on. The truth is that the numbers published by each country represent different data. The US uses international standards and China has their own. My point being that no matter what we say the Chinese will publish numbers favorable to China. They must win. At all costs.
Is there anyone here who does not understand this or doesn't believe it?
The best part is when the ital. super volcano goes boom.. Newf will freeze
Facts lost on climate change greenies. 1) we are at the end of the last ice age, the poles melting is natural.. The same science that say's it's man made also says these area were hot steamy jungles before the ice age.. you know when there was no industry and human input on the climate. 2) the earth does not spin like a top , yes it is more stable than say mars, but it does tilt off axis and does this slowly and is to us a long term thing, in the eyes of the universe it's a short term thing..
What they don't tell you.. is why they are not trusted.. many believe what they are fed as they can't put one and one together.. Science doesn't even have to try to hide it. because most can't put a puzzle together.
Originally posted by Hudini: They have this covered already. Are you familiar with the air pollution monitoring stations in China? Well the US Embassy has one at each consulate. Amazingly, each embassy has readings that are higher than the PRCs official readings. Every single one.
I'm sure you have the data to back that statement up.....right?
Hell I see it everyday. I have an app called Air Matters that lists both the PRC numbers and the US Embassy in the various cities. And it always is different with the PRC numbers lower.
Today's numbers : PRC = 154 US Embassy = 173 (BTW, those are very ugly numbers. Like it's foggy outside except it ain't fog)
Hudini, what would it take for you to believe that AGW was real? 2 degrees C above normal? 3 C? 5 C? Deniers keep moving the goalpost so it's impossible to "settle the science".
I also find that most deniers don't want government in their business and therefore WANT to believe that global warming isn't a big deal. That's equivalent to burying your head in the sand.
And therein lies the problem. Global warming is two COMPLETELY separate issues. 1 - are humans causing the earth to warm? 2 - what can we do about it?
(I haven't read the last 50 or so pages, so forgive me if I missed something)
''From what I understand to the Karl 2015 paper. The changes were to he anomaly data, not the raw data. This was done because the ship water intake data has a significantly longer data record.
It's like knowing your tank temperature data sensor has a 0.5 deg offset. You know that the measurements from 10 years ago are (0.5, 0.6. 0.7), nowadays the new measurements are (0.6, 0.8, and 1.0). Even if the instrument baseline is off the anomaly is still (0.1, 0.2, 0.3) and there is huge effort ifrom the folks running all of the the datasets to trace down and account for errors in these anomalies due to changes in location, time-of-observation, instrumentation, shielding, etc.
The article is a piss-poor attempt to denigrate working scientists who have, in cases, committed a lifetime of observational studies to the body of work relating to this subject. Venal politicians are totally did-respectful of the effort required to gain some of the data, that they misconstrue s falsified. I'd love to see their fat-arses out on the ice releasing and tracking met balloons at stupid o'clock in the morning, or boring ice holes for ice thickness measurements to calibrate and back-up the satellite measurements. No doubt they will be too busy wining and dining lobbyists! ''
quote from the .internationalskeptics board on the daily mail lies those lies are repeated endlessly by the nut-con's like agragavateadoor does here but as the poster said we never see the nut-con deniers out getting data of their own just lying about the data others have collected
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
The article is a piss-poor attempt to denigrate working scientists who have, in cases, committed a lifetime of observational studies to the body of work relating to this subject. Venal politicians are totally did-respectful of the effort required to gain some of the data, that they misconstrue s falsified. I'd love to see their fat-arses out on the ice releasing and tracking met balloons at stupid o'clock in the morning, or boring ice holes for ice thickness measurements to calibrate and back-up the satellite measurements. No doubt they will be too busy wining and dining lobbyists! ''
And the fact that they have deticated their lives and careers to their study does not justify the deliberate manipulation of data to avoid an inconvenient truth.....
Republican "elders" float carbon tax plan, prepare to lobby White House Group includes James Baker, George Schulzt, Hank Paulsen and last (but not least) Ted Halstead of the New America Foundation.
Republican "elders" float carbon tax plan, prepare to lobby White House Group includes James Baker, George Schulzt, Hank Paulsen and last (but not least) Ted Halstead of the New America Foundation.
Lol, I can already hear the answer and see the tweet.......
As for the "Republican Elders" - James Baker - World Justice Project - Honorary Chair George Shultz - A AGW convert after leaving public service Hank Paulsen - The Paulson Institute Ted Halstead - The Climate Leadership Council
->->-> $$$$$$$$$$$$$
[This message has been edited by jmclemore (edited 02-08-2017).]
The best part is when the ital. super volcano goes boom.. Newf will freeze
Facts lost on climate change greenies. 1) we are at the end of the last ice age, the poles melting is natural.. The same science that say's it's man made also says these area were hot steamy jungles before the ice age.. you know when there was no industry and human input on the climate. 2) the earth does not spin like a top , yes it is more stable than say mars, but it does tilt off axis and does this slowly and is to us a long term thing, in the eyes of the universe it's a short term thing..
What they don't tell you.. is why they are not trusted.. many believe what they are fed as they can't put one and one together.. Science doesn't even have to try to hide it. because most can't put a puzzle together.
AH, no one will touch this one, as it makes their man made climate fear mongering null and void
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 02-11-2017).]
AH, no one will touch this one, as it makes their man made climate fear mongering null and void
I'll touch on it for you.
1) You are not now, nor have you ever been, a climatologist, geologist, or any other ologist, and clearly have no idea WTF you are talking about. But I'm sure it's something you'd love to repeat, until we actually are in an ice age.
2) You clearly have no idea how a top spins. A top does not spin around a fixed axis. It wobbles. That is exactly how the Earth spins, because the axis is a result of the spin, not the thing which directs the spin. You can't perceive the wobbling of the top at higher spin speeds, because your eyes are too slow to see it, and your brain "corrects" for it. Only when the spin slows do you start to notice it wobble. This is true of any object which you spin, be it a top, coin, ball, cube, or anything else. It is how gravity works.
Two reports from December 2016, and a third one from January 2017. The two reports from "fireboss" are from 2014 and 2015. These reports are not published with tabloid style "shouts at you" type font, nor were they accompanied by photographs of scientists paying homage to Al Gore.
If there is anything in these three reports that contradicts the general scientific narrative of "warming planet, shrinking cryosphere", I don't see what it would be. I don't think these reports line up with the "Bad News For Al Gore" layout from "fireboss".
Global sea ice in November: Black swans flock to both poles In early December (2016), the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) reported that both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extents had dropped to record lows in November 2016. The surprise was more than just both hemispheres experiencing record-low extents. The extents were far outside the range of variability that we'd expect based on historical observations.
Widespread warmth in the Arctic "In the contiguous United States, on any given day, the record high temperature for a region, like eastern Colorado or Pennsylvania, might be 30 to 35°F above the average for that day. In the Arctic in mid-November, an area the size of the entire contiguous U.S. had temperatures that far above the norm, all at the same time."
Sea ice hits record lows Unusually high air temperatures and a warm ocean have led to a record low Arctic sea ice extent for November, according to scientists at the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC). In the Southern Hemisphere, Antarctic sea ice extent also hit a record low for the month, caused by moderately warm temperatures and a rapid shift in circumpolar winds.
Huge Under-Ice Valleys Are Melting Antarctic Glaciers from Below Huge valleys recently discovered underneath Antarctic ice allow warm ocean water to flow beneath the continent's massive glaciers, fueling their rapid retreat, a new study finds.
1) You are not now, nor have you ever been, a climatologist, geologist, or any other ologist, and clearly have no idea WTF you are talking about. But I'm sure it's something you'd love to repeat, until we actually are in an ice age.
2) You clearly have no idea how a top spins. A top does not spin around a fixed axis. It wobbles. That is exactly how the Earth spins, because the axis is a result of the spin, not the thing which directs the spin. You can't perceive the wobbling of the top at higher spin speeds, because your eyes are too slow to see it, and your brain "corrects" for it. Only when the spin slows do you start to notice it wobble. This is true of any object which you spin, be it a top, coin, ball, cube, or anything else. It is how gravity works.
Bahahahaha.. you didn't even touch it..
Tell me.. if the poles that are covered in ice. where jungles before the ice age.. how did the ice melt the time before now.. to cause the poles to get to the point of hot enough to become jungles, with no industry to be the scapegoat cause?? all we are seeing is the last part of the ice age going Melting.. it be doing this even if humans were still living in the stone age.. with no industry or emissions to blame.. BAHAHAHA.... stay stupid you are good at it.. The same science that claims the jungles were there ,is the same ones claiming the human made ice melt.. AGAIN you and many others can't put 1 and 1 together to see they are pushing the agenda of those paying the bills and not the truth.. and they don't even try to hide the facts that would show they are wrong. as people like you can't put 1 and 1 together..
You are not now, nor have you ever been, a climatologist, geologist, or any other ologist, and clearly have no idea WTF you are talking about. But I'm sure it's something you'd love to repeat, until we actually are in an ice age.
