Climate Change

[CellarRat]

m.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-myth-of-settled-science/2014/02/20/c1f8d994-9a75-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html

[Deleted]

Interesting take on the issue. Odd that the conservative side always poo-poo's the "science" while the liberal side uses the same data as a warning to take action before any action is ineffective. Could it be related to the fact that the conservative (aka friends of big business carbon dispensers) side is resistant because of the impact of corrective actions on their bottom lines while ignoring the impact of no action on our shore lines. I especially found his mammography example craftily written. Took issue with "free" mammograms in all policies - sounds like he'd prefer optional early detection methods but be comfortable with more expensive late stage treatment for all, even those that didn't have the mammo option and then found the disease at or near Stage 4. I always love it when opponents quote the "unnecessary treatment or surgery" scenario. What is the "unnecessary" term based on? How does one determine that a patient that underwent a radical or partial mastectomy would NOT have developed cancer had that surgery not been performed? I guess conservatives only value science when it increases their profit margin and devalue it when it only increases their costs.

[Deleted]

Mr Krauthammer also failed to mention pr challenge any of the facts that support the science he discounts, e.g., melting/disappearing polar ice caps, rising sea levels, higher frequency of much stronger tornadoes and hurricanes, overall rise in global temperatures. Conservatives say that this happens periodically in our earth's history and it's no big deal. Tell that to the dinosaurs and mammoths! I guess these old stodgy conservatives are direct decendents of prehistoric cave men and have a library of family cave wall notes! They worry more about the impact of our national debt on our grandchildren but could care less about what we are doing to the planet and climate. I guess they see that building a huge nestegg for the grandkids will position them to be able to afford housing in the mountains, a natural gas well in the south 40, a natural gas powered electric power generation station, efficient air conditioning, a deep water well and self-sufficient water treatment plant. Hmmmmmmm! Maybe that is the way to go......

[CellarRat]

You are a rabid wind bag. Can you say anything with brevity? There is something beautiful about being succinct regardless of what "side" you're on. You have a mind that is impenetrable to new thought.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2014 6:17:17 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

You are a rabid wind bag. Can you say anything with brevity? There is something beautiful about being succinct regardless of what "side" you're on. You have a mind that is impenetrable to new thought.

Bite me! Is that succinct enough for you?

[CellarRat]

Mar 13, 2014 6:34:19 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Mar 13, 2014 6:17:17 GMT -5 CellarRat said:

You are a rabid wind bag. Can you say anything with brevity? There is something beautiful about being succinct regardless of what "side" you're on. You have a mind that is impenetrable to new thought.

Bite me! Is that succinct enough for you?

Yes.

[glen]

OK, I love this topic :-)

Even the NYTimes noted that the data doesn't support substantive warming for at least the last 15 years. That is fact.

By now, according to all the "changers" we should be seeing significant warming - that's what the models (and Prince Charles) predicted.
This last hurricane season so very little activity when we were told we should see more and greater intensity in hurricane activity.

At this point the evidence doesn't point to any significant problem. It just doesn't.

Weather v Climate = span of time. The climate has definitely been warmer. That's a fact. Another fact (inconvenient as it is) is that, generally, humanity and the planet do better when it is warmer (see Medieval Maximum). Additionally, plants do much better with greater CO2 concentrations. Fact.

Now if you're just going to deny the facts then I'm not the denier. If you're going to point at "Big Oil" then I'll point right back at your "Big Government". Money is money and corruption is corruption. Just because the source is government doesn't change the skew.

Here's something to consider. The northeast states have something called RGGI - a cap/trade system for CO2 emissions. One of the odd things is that in order for RGGI to be "successful", they need several nuke plants to go offline. Hmmm. Nukes don't emit CO2. Why would they need to go offline? I'll tell you - it is because they'd need to be backfilled by CO2 emitting (prob nat gas) plants that would fall under RGGI. Hmmm - it seems that RGGI might be more interested in $$$ than CO2.

[glen]

Another thought to consider. There are multiple steps to this argument.

1. The planet is warming. As noted above this isn't a slam dunk. Can be argued based on your windows and time horizons.
2. CO2 is the culprit. This is theory as it hasn't been demonstrated base on observation outside of literally a green house.
3. Man is the cause of the CO2. Again, this isn't really conclusive either.

I consider my self enviro friendly but according to the EPA I'm polluting just by existing. I think that's taking it a bit far.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2014 11:01:07 GMT -5 glen said:

Another thought to consider. There are multiple steps to this argument.

1. The planet is warming. As noted above this isn't a slam dunk. Can be argued based on your windows and time horizons.
2. CO2 is the culprit. This is theory as it hasn't been demonstrated base on observation outside of literally a green house.
3. Man is the cause of the CO2. Again, this isn't really conclusive either.

I consider my self enviro friendly but according to the EPA I'm polluting just by existing. I think that's taking it a bit far.

Keeping in line with your reasoning - birth is guaranteed, no science needed, to lead to death - let's make birth illegal!!!!!!!!

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2014 11:23:55 GMT -5 @misspractice said:

Mar 13, 2014 11:01:07 GMT -5 glen said:

Another thought to consider. There are multiple steps to this argument.

1. The planet is warming. As noted above this isn't a slam dunk. Can be argued based on your windows and time horizons.
2. CO2 is the culprit. This is theory as it hasn't been demonstrated base on observation outside of literally a green house.
3. Man is the cause of the CO2. Again, this isn't really conclusive either.

I consider my self enviro friendly but according to the EPA I'm polluting just by existing. I think that's taking it a bit far.

Keeping in line with your reasoning - birth is guaranteed, no science needed, to lead to death - let's make birth illegal!!!!!!!!

What the hell? Did you come to this conclusion just before bed time? Wow.

[glen]

MP - in all seriousness, I'm not sure I follow your analogy.

[th24]

[Deleted]

Mar 14, 2014 6:42:39 GMT -5 glen said:

MP - in all seriousness, I'm not sure I follow your analogy.

Just having a little fun while reading your convoluted logic. Let's see - CO2 in the atmosphere is going up but you completely discount the source being manmade carbon generators (your statement about your breathing being part of the problem is, IMO, as absurd as the oft quoted example I cited), you don't believe that science can and does measure the impact on UV rays by diluting the atmosphere with more CO2 (wouldn't want to overtax your brain with a discussion on ozone - people bought that science - aerosols were a smaller market segment in most portfolios), you believe the earth is warming but discount any linkage to the science so I gave you a ridiculous statement that you don't need science to see the conclusion is sound yet the action is absurd. Ignoring our impact on the globe is equally absurd. You see no value in reducing the carbon footprint - it's just not convenient and until there is conclusive proof the convenient choice is do nothing - read that do nothing to minimize big company profits. The science evident in the melting polar ice caps, more (not quantity - magnitude) violent storms, rising sea levels, stronger than ever El Nino (which is occurring now), the fact that man uses a lot of carbon based energy sources and can certainly be viewed by anyone with a brain as one major source of the increased CO2 that is measured in our atmosphere.

I loved the Krauthammer argument that Sandy was not a hurricane - laughable; and that we don't have more tornadoes - equally laughable - the ones we've seen over the last few years a gigantic in comparison with prior years.

And to Racers question - yes, I posted it just before watching Iowa go down and then being down, I went down as well..

[Deleted]

Mar 14, 2014 8:04:44 GMT -5 th24 said:

th24 are you capable of expressing any thoughts on your own?

[glen]

Just having a little fun while reading your convoluted logic. Let's see - CO2 in the atmosphere is going up but you completely discount the source being manmade carbon generators (your statement about your breathing being part of the problem is, IMO, as absurd as the oft quoted example I cited), you don't believe that science can and does measure the impact on UV rays by diluting the atmosphere with more CO2 (wouldn't want to overtax your brain with a discussion on ozone - people bought that science - aerosols were a smaller market segment in most portfolios), you believe the earth is warming but discount any linkage to the science so I gave you a ridiculous statement that you don't need science to see the conclusion is sound yet the action is absurd. Ignoring our impact on the globe is equally absurd. You see no value in reducing the carbon footprint - it's just not convenient and until there is conclusive proof the convenient choice is do nothing - read that do nothing to minimize big company profits. The science evident in the melting polar ice caps, more (not quantity - magnitude) violent storms, rising sea levels, stronger than ever El Nino (which is occurring now), the fact that man uses a lot of carbon based energy sources and can certainly be viewed by anyone with a brain as one major source of the increased CO2 that is measured in our atmosphere.

I loved the Krauthammer argument that Sandy was not a hurricane - laughable; and that we don't have more tornadoes - equally laughable - the ones we've seen over the last few years a gigantic in comparison with prior years.
====

Here we go:
1. CO2 is going up. Yes. So? Warming hasn't been happening as modeled...not even close. So all we know is there is an increased concentration. And what?
2. I don't believe the earth is warming. You do. The onus is on you to prove it is and what the cause is. You haven't in either case.
3. No - I see no value in reducing my carbon footprint as of today. You still haven't shown a causal relationship to the non-existent warming. PS: Neither does Al Gore or he would walk the walk and not just talk it.
4. Impact on the globe?!?! You do know that plants, people and animals all do much better when the climate is warmer (and there is more CO2) right? Plants can withstand significantly greater dry periods when the CO2 concentration is raised.
5. The science isn't evident. The polar caps aren't in fact melting. This past season's Caribbean hurricane cycle was one of the weakest in a decade. You jump to conclusions that a) it is CO2 as the cause and b) that man is the cause of the CO2. You do realize 1 major volcanic eruption emits more CO2 than the USA in a year right?!?! Yes, man uses a lot of carbon but saying that means it is relatively significant is like saying it is 15 degrees in mid-March so we're in the middle of an ice age. You need to correlate that data and show causality. You're making emotional responses because it fits your world view.
6. Sandy was NOT a hurricane. It was a tropical storm when it made landfall. The damage was exacerbated by high tide and a full moon. You've been to Long Island right? It literally is at sea level in many spots. Throw high tide, full moon and storm surge and you get massive flood damage.
7. I'll note to that in the 70s your comrades were all concerned about a new ice age. What happened?!?!?

So yes, all this fuss about CO2 is inconvenient and until I see some better data a) I'm not changing my lifestyle and b) not happy about paying more for stuff for no reason. If all the AGW pushers like Gore and company start ditching their limos and jets then maybe I'll consider a change but I see a bunch of blow hards (polluters) spouting off about how I should cut back while they have the footprint of a T-Rex. Sorry you guys first.