• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Ok hold on now, Maybe we need to increase global warming! Winter Is Coming!

Vis said:
Which government?
Click to expand...

All of them, including the UN. Are you that clueless?

The IPCC might as well be called the State Science Institute
 
Last edited:
Tim Steelersfan said:
You are so deep into this Religion Vis, it's actually funny...knowing you're an atheist.

Common fact...the less educated someone is, the less they question. The more educated, the more they question. You claim the opposite.

SMH.
Click to expand...

When do I get my check from the Koch's?
 
If you have identified a problem and your solution is more government control, bigger government and higher taxes, you have identified the wrong problem.
 
ark steel said:
All of them, including the UN. Are you that clueless?
Click to expand...

All of them, regardless of political ideology or national allegiances are in on a hoax. Largest conspiracy ever. Are they all controlled by aliens who visited or is it the Jews?

The good thing about this issue is that those running for president in the GOP who play stupid and deny climate change will not get any moderates just like those who want to turn back the clock on marriage equality. The road to 270 is blocked by the rational.
 
Last edited:
Vis said:
All of them, regardless of political ideology or national allegiances are in on a hoax.
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy if they all want one thing, and they do, regardless of ideology. More power. When government officials get more power, they MUST be taking it from the people and that makes them happy.

More taxes, more control. It isn't, at all, about the environment. Which is why the Kyoto treaty exempted China and India and allowed the 'rich' countries to buy carbon credits from smaller countries that weren't using theirs. Someone, on a global scale (i.e. the State Science Institute) would determine how much you can get without having to buy credits and that decision, almost always, will be political in nature and chosen to reign in those who aren't in the right clique. A massive, massive wealth redistribution. Pure and Simple.
 
ark steel said:
It doesn't have to be a conspiracy if they all want one thing, and they do, regardless of ideology. More power. When government officials get more power, they MUST be taking it from the people and that makes them happy.

More taxes, more control. It isn't, at all, about the environment. Which is why the Kyoto treaty exempted China and India and allowed the 'rich' countries to buy carbon credits from smaller countries that weren't using theirs. Someone, on a global scale (i.e. the State Science Institute) would determine how much you can get without having to buy credits and that decision, almost always, will be political in nature and chosen to reign in those who aren't in the right clique. A massive, massive wealth redistribution. Pure and Simple.
Click to expand...

Don't forget that the Pope and the Pentagon are in on it. Either that or they are right and deniers are both immoral and a threat to national security.
 
Vis said:
Don't forget that the Pope and the Pentagon are in on it. Either that or they are right and deniers are both immoral and a threat to national security.
Click to expand...

The Pope is a socialist who would be happy raping the 'rich' countries of all of their money and the Pentagon does as it is told. You do know that the Pentagon is part of the government that wants more control, right?
 
Vis said:
All based on American politics.
Click to expand...

So now you want American taxpayers to pay for this new world order bill while China, India and other developing nations opt out and do nothing.

brilliant
 
Vis said:
All based on American politics. The right thinks that's what it's about while ignoring that every scientific society in every country has to be in on the hoax with only our valiant coal, and oil industries protecting us from the lie.
Click to expand...

Vis, for **** sake, can you avoid vapid strawman arguments?!?!?

The global warming scientists posed a theory that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels upset the delicate balance of the planet's atmosphere and thereby brought about warming far greater than can be explained by things like solar activity, or normal temperature variation, or our environment coming out of a little ice age. Those scientists then sought to prove their theories via computer models.

The goal was to have the computer models accurately simulate past, recorded temperature data, so that the computer models could then predict (accurately) what was to happen in the future. The scientists have generated dozens of computer models, despite a spate of mathematicians and computer experts pointing out that the number of variables - dynamics - for climate models makes them very inaccurate, and subject to error. This article does a good job of explaining the errors of computer climate models:

http://www.nipccreport.org/reports/ccr2a/pdf/Chapter-1-Models.pdf

The climate models are just not accurate, Vis. This is not a product of lying, or a massive plot, or any such ****. I have no doubt but that the climate scientists are trying to show that man-made CO2 emissions are effecting the climate, and are doing so because they believe they are right.

Who ******* cares?? Goddammit, Vis, scientists who are just plain ******* wrong don't extol a theory saying, "**** it, I'm wrong, but I'm rolling with it anyway." The scientists are wrong and just not willing to acknowledge that THEY ARE ******* WRONG.

That is what is going on, Vis. The computer models are just ... NOT ... accurate:

spencers-graph-models-vs-reality.png


So what happens when scientists have dedicated a lot of their lives and their entire professional careers to climate predictions and climate models that are simply NOT ACCURATE? Do they say, "**** it, I was wrong"??

Of course not. They do what all scientists do. The re-visit the models, change them, revise them, try and explain the discrepancies. I have no dispute, at all, with that approach.

But what I have said on this forum for years is the following: I am unwilling to spend billions of dollars - perhaps trillions? - in changing our use of fossil fuels based on computer models that are just ******* WRONG. Until we have a reliable computer model that shows petroleum-based CO2 emissions are going to increase temperatures by "x" degrees over the next 50 and 100 years, then I am unwilling to spend an incredible amount of money changing how we power our homes, and cool our homes, and power our cars. I am just not willing to do that.

So enough with the ******* strawman arguments. Jesus, it really is no different than me telling you, "So you think thermometers are in a giant conspiracy to disprove climate scientists??" Seriously, it is no different.

My hesitation to change our economic structure, and energy base, is founded on the valid concerns noted above. So enough with the goddamn derisive and mocking references to "conspiracies."
 
Don't you just love how "Climate Change" makes the Liberal rich richer, and keeps the poor poorer? Sounds like what Republicans have long been accused of.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-climate-change-revolt-1442014369

California’s Climate Change Revolt
Democrats reject green schemes that raise energy costs for the non-rich.

The environmental lobby has tried to turn climate change into a social justice issue even though its anticarbon policies disproportionately harm the poor. Honest Democrats are starting to admit this, as we saw in this week’s stunning revolt in the California legislature.

Jerry Brown doesn’t have much to show for his second turn in Sacramento, and of late he has focused his legacy attention on reducing carbon emissions. The Governor hailed California as a model of green virtue at the Vatican this summer and had hoped to flaunt sweeping new anticarbon regulations at the U.N’s climate-change summit in Paris this year.

But now his party has mutinied. Democrats hold near supermajorities in both legislative chambers with 52 of 80 seats in the Assembly. Yet this week 21 Democratic Assembly members representing middle- and low-income communities—including 11 blacks and Latinos—joined Republicans to kill a bill mandating a cut in state greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Democrats also forced Mr. Brown to scrap a measure that would have given the California Air Resources Board plenary authority to reduce statewide oil consumption in vehicles by half by 2030. Imagine the EPA without the accountability. “One of the implications probably would have been higher gas prices,” noted Democratic Assemblyman Jim Cooper. “Who does it impact the most? The middle class and low-income folks.”

Many Democrats demanded that the legislature get an up-or-down vote on the board’s proposed regulations before they take effect. Yet the Governor and Senate liberals wouldn’t abide constraints on the board’s powers.

The defeat is all the more striking for the failure of appeals to green moral superiority. Liberal groups targeted Catholic Democrats with ads featuring Pope Francis. Mr. Brown demonized oil companies for selling a “highly destructive” product.

The most morally destructive product in California these days is green government. Take the 33% renewable electricity mandate. Since 2011 solar energy has increased more than 10-fold while wind has nearly doubled. But during this period electricity rates have jumped 2.18 cents per kilowatt hour—four times the national average. Inland residents and energy-intensive businesses have been walloped the most.

California’s cap-and-trade program has also hurt manufacturers, power plants and oil refiners, which are required to purchase permits to emit carbon. Between 2011 and 2014, California’s manufacturing employment increased by 2% compared to 6% nationwide, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Cap and trade has also raised fuel costs, though its effect is hard to isolate from other environmental mandates. The Western States Petroleum Association last year projected that cap and trade would add 16 to 76 cents per gallon to the retail price of gas based on data from the Air Resources Board.

In 2006 Californians paid about 23 cents more per gallon than the national average due to higher gas taxes and the state’s reformulated fuel regulations. The price premium increased to 41 cents last year and spiked to $1.14 in May after several in-state refineries experienced problems. The average gas price in California is now $3.22 and $3.41 in the Los Angeles metro region (where a couple of refineries are undergoing maintenance) compared to $2.36 nationwide.

California’s low-carbon fuel standard will jack up gas prices even more. This anticarbon policy requires refiners to cut their fuel’s “lifecycle” carbon emissions including transport to market by 10% by 2020. The goal is to boost California biofuels. However, there aren’t enough commercially available “advanced” biofuels to meet the targets, so fuel blenders will have to buy regulatory credits.

The chief beneficiaries of the Golden State’s green government have been the well-to-do, while low- and middle-income Californians have borne most of the regulatory costs. The Bay Area and Los Angeles regions account for 80% of the state’s electric car rebates compared to the San Joaquin Valley’s 2%.

Liberals in Sacramento have promised to spend cap-and-trade revenues on car-sharing programs, low-emissions public transit and electric-car charging stations in low-income communities. But then they sock it to these drivers with regulations that raise gasoline prices.

Meantime, while job growth in the Bay Area is booming, unemployment remains high in the rest of the state. The unemployment rate is 3.8% in San Francisco and 2.9% in Palo Alto. It’s 10.4% in Fresno, 8.8% in San Bernardino and 9.6% in the refining hub of Carson—nearly four percentage points higher than in December 2007.

After this week’s defeat, Mr. Brown vowed to use regulation to end-run the legislature. “We don’t have a declaration in statute, but we have absolutely the same authority,” he declared. President Obama has taught him well. “We’re going forward. The only thing different is my zeal has been intensified to a maximum degree.” Vengeance is his, and the Governor will make hard-up Californians pay for their sins of emission.
Click to expand...
 
I strongly believe that fossil fuel use over the last 150 years has "changed" our environment.

I strongly believe that it has and will impact ecosystems, biological diversity and ability of many species to adapt/evolve in time to save themselves. The impacts of ecosystem collapses on human populations is very difficult to predict. Logic indicates it's not a good thing but I also think **** sapiens are incredibly resilient.

The truth is I don't think we can "stop" man's impact on the environment. While guilt and having a conscience about our impact can do a lot (and it has), economics still are the driving force as to energy decisions around the world.

I have no issues with the United States encouraging alternate energy sources. They should continue to do so. I think it makes us stronger as a country if we have different ways to create energy. Even if you believe in fossil fuel usage if more homes are run by alternate energy, then our domestic gas/oil reserves will last longer. The longer we can stay energy independent, the better. If it's 100 years, 500 years, whatever. It's better for us as a country.

Overpopulation is the world's #1 environmental disaster. Not HOW they get their energy. We've ruined as many ecosystems in the quest for food than we have in the quest for energy. But it is all tied together. More people = more energy use = more food needs = environmental changes make food harder to find.

We talk about environmental impacts of climate change in terms of 20-50-100 years. But in 50 years we might have 15 billion people on the planet. As people mix, as people and food sources interact more the chances of disease go up.

It's a race of technology vs. population growth. Can medicine keep up? Can food production keep up? Can a cheaper alternate energy source come along before the climate is so changes it can't support human growth? And all the while it will cost trillions of dollars to maintain the status quo.

It's a perpetual race. For about 250 years, technology has stayed ahead and population exploded. Can it continue?
 
If there was global warming it would be getting warmer everywhere. Where I live the last three summers have been unseasonably cool and winters worse than usual. Therefore it is just weather and not global warming.
 
Vis said:
As your teacher I blame your parents.
Click to expand...

We already know it can't possibly be the teacher's fault. Send me money for free breakfasts and lunches. Stop letting me go out for recess. Then complain that I'm too restless in class. I could get some good drugs, then, a d make a fortune selling them on the street.
 
Ron Burgundy said:
If there was global warming it would be getting warmer everywhere. Where I live the last three summers have been unseasonably cool and winters worse than usual. Therefore it is just weather and not global warming.
Click to expand...

This, here, is proof of climate change.
 
Study Finds Snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada to Be Lowest in 500 Years
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/15/science/california-snow-report.html?_r=0

“The 2015 snowpack in the Sierra Nevada is unprecedented,” said Valerie Trouet, one of the authors of the study and a paleoclimatologist at the University of Arizona. “We expected it to be bad, but we certainly didn’t expect it to be the worst in the past 500 years.”
.../...
After analyzing the data, the team determined with its model that snowpack levels as low as this year’s were a once-in-1,000-years event. But because of rising temperatures caused by human activities, the researchers said they thought that snow droughts would become much more frequent.
.../...
Noah Diffenbaugh, a climate scientist at Stanford, said the study provided valuable information about the historical context of the drought, which would help in understanding its causes. He said that, when combined with previous studies, the new findings helped “provide strong evidence that global warming has substantially increased the probability of getting these extremely low snow conditions.”

A. Park Williams, a bioclimatologist at Columbia University, said the study added to evidence that rising temperatures had exacerbated the lack of snow in California.

“We are now migrating into this new world where temperatures are higher,” Dr. Williams said. “So even though the chances of an event like this were extremely unlikely in the past, in the future it will be more likely to occur.”
 
Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever

President Obama hiked to Exit Glacier in Alaska last week, with photographers in tow, to send the world a message: The glacier is melting.

Obama blames it on the increasing use of fossil fuels such as coal,oil and natural gas,which he wants to restrict not only in the United States but worldwide. The photo op was designed to build support for an international climate agreement he’s pushing hard to sell, so far with little success.

.....Exit Glacier has been shrinking for 200 years—since 1815—long before widespread industrialization and automobiles. As the president ended his trip,he sounded the alarm again: “This state’s climate is changing before our eyes.”

News flash, Mr. President:Alaska has been buffeted by cyclical swings in climate for thousands of years. That’s true for the rest of the world,too. There was a 300-year-long Medieval heat wave, followed by a Little Ice Age that began around 1300, and then the 300-year warming period we’re in now.

The Anchorage Daily Times ran a front-page story in 1922 recording the “unheard-of temperatures” in the Arctic and glaciers disappearing. “The Arctic Ocean is warming up and icebergs are growing scarcer.”

....[Obama] said:“We want to make sure our grandkids can see this.”

He may get his wish, but it won’t be because of anything he’s doing.

The current warming trend appears to be over, speculates Roger Cohen,a fellow of the American Physical Society. The Alaska Climate Research Center reports almost no evidence of warming trends in Alaska since 1977.

Many scientists are predicting the onset of two or three centuries of cooler weather — which would mean bigger glaciers. That’s despite the world’s growing use of fossil fuels. No matter what humans do, temperature trends go up, and then down; glaciers expand and then recede; sea levels rise and then fall, explains Will Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton.


It’s a demonstration of Obama’s appalling lack of priorities.

The president told his Alaska audience that “few things will disrupt our lives as profoundly as climate change.”

Really, Mr. President? How about the epidemic of cop shootings in the United States,or the drowned toddlers washing up on Mediterranean shores as families flee the Middle East, or ISIS beheading thousands of Christians?

http://nypost.com/2015/09/07/wake-up-obama-climate-change-has-been-happening-forever/
 
Spike said:
Wake up, Obama, climate change has been happening forever

President Obama hiked to Exit Glacier in Alaska last week, with photographers in tow, to send the world a message: The glacier is melting.

Obama blames it on the increasing use of fossil fuels such as coal,oil and natural gas,which he wants to restrict not only in the United States but worldwide. The photo op was designed to build support for an international climate agreement he’s pushing hard to sell, so far with little success.

.....Exit Glacier has been shrinking for 200 years—since 1815—long before widespread industrialization and automobiles. As the president ended his trip,he sounded the alarm again: “This state’s climate is changing before our eyes.”

News flash, Mr. President:Alaska has been buffeted by cyclical swings in climate for thousands of years. That’s true for the rest of the world,too. There was a 300-year-long Medieval heat wave, followed by a Little Ice Age that began around 1300, and then the 300-year warming period we’re in now.

The Anchorage Daily Times ran a front-page story in 1922 recording the “unheard-of temperatures” in the Arctic and glaciers disappearing. “The Arctic Ocean is warming up and icebergs are growing scarcer.”

....[Obama] said:“We want to make sure our grandkids can see this.”

He may get his wish, but it won’t be because of anything he’s doing.

The current warming trend appears to be over, speculates Roger Cohen,a fellow of the American Physical Society. The Alaska Climate Research Center reports almost no evidence of warming trends in Alaska since 1977.

FACTSHEET: ROGER COHEN
DETAILS
Former Manager, Strategic Planning & Programs, Exxon/Mobil (retired)
Former Manager of Strategic Planning at Exxon (1978 – 2003) George C Marshall Institute, "expert" Fellow at the American Physical Society

Shocking, I know

Many scientists are predicting the onset of two or three centuries of cooler weather — which would mean bigger glaciers. That’s despite the world’s growing use of fossil fuels. No matter what humans do, temperature trends go up, and then down; glaciers expand and then recede; sea levels rise and then fall, explains Will Happer, professor emeritus of physics at Princeton.


It’s a demonstration of Obama’s appalling lack of priorities.

The president told his Alaska audience that “few things will disrupt our lives as profoundly as climate change.”

Really, Mr. President? How about the epidemic of cop shootings in the United States,or the drowned toddlers washing up on Mediterranean shores as families flee the Middle East, or ISIS beheading thousands of Christians?

http://nypost.com/2015/09/07/wake-up-obama-climate-change-has-been-happening-forever/
Click to expand...

..........................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top