Scientists increasingly moving to global cooling consensus

hillfarmer wrote: You're not going to convince printsmith. For this type of individual this is a religion based on the belief that nothing should be allowed which contravenes my ability to do what every I want. Only the psuedoscience which supports that mantra is allowable. .

Talk about a pompous statement You must be great at charades to know so much about how another person you probably don't know thinks.

hillfarmer wrote: You're not going to convince printsmith. For this type of individual this is a religion based on the belief that nothing should be allowed which contravenes my ability to do what every I want. Only the psuedoscience which supports that mantra is allowable. I applaud the willingness to step up, refute that psuedoscience and defend science and logic. It is abundantly clear that climate change is here. Anyone who is the least bit aware of their surroundings here in the mountains see the evidence of that change. When 97% of scientists and all reputable scientific organizations point to the evidence that man is contributing to that change, it is abundantly clear that we need to find ways to mitigate our impact.

So HF, what would be your solution? Force Europe and America to make massive cuts to their standard of living to keep the temp down? Force India and China who have transitioned billions of people from subsistence survival to a working class existence back to that subsistence existence with million dying of starvation? And how do you get these countries to quit consuming and producing?

Just read this week about the pass that windmill companies are getting to kill millions of birds including bald eagles. If I kill a bald eagle, I am going to prison, but because it is green energy, everything goes, right?

FredHayek wrote:
Just read this week about the pass that windmill companies are getting to kill millions of birds including bald eagles. If I kill a bald eagle, I am going to prison, but because it is green energy, everything goes, right?

The ends justify the means don't ya know Fred? Bald eagles aren't as cute as polar bears and they represent American freedom and liberty... expendable.

So if I shoot an eagle accidentally, I just need to put the corpse at the base of a windmill.

And riddle me this, if windmills are such a great idea, why isn't South Park full of them?

PrintSmith wrote: Now establish that the deep sea temperature change is the result of CO2 and not increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet Dog. Can you do that? Can you exclude that from the list of causes? Do you know for a fact that it is CO2 or is it simply a belief that those who worship at the alter of anthropogenic climate change hold?

Really? That is the best you have? What evidence of increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet that would affect the deep ocean water on a global scale do you have? Because there is none. Oh yeah, you don't deal with facts or evidence. Are you sure that it is not underwater dragons, or giant electric eels? The best science at this time is that the deep oceans are rising in temperature due to global warming and acting as a temporary heat sink thus lowering the increase in surface temperatures. That global warming is occuring due to increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of scientific fact.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/fasullo/m ... talNCC.pdf

Well Dog if you still fall for the GW hysteria turn in your car. Do your part but don't force others to fund your unproved goofy solutions.

FredHayek wrote: Well Dog if you still fall for the GW hysteria turn in your car. Do your part but don't force others to fund your unproved goofy solutions.

Typical nonsense by Fred yet again. Perhaps you would be so kind to detail my "unproved goofy solutions" and why I am forcing others to fund them?

Despite your "overwhelming" evidence the politicians of the world have kicked the can down the road once again. You can only cry wolf so often.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: Now establish that the deep sea temperature change is the result of CO2 and not increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet Dog. Can you do that? Can you exclude that from the list of causes? Do you know for a fact that it is CO2 or is it simply a belief that those who worship at the alter of anthropogenic climate change hold?

Really? That is the best you have? What evidence of increased geothermal activity eminating from the core of the planet that would affect the deep ocean water on a global scale do you have? Because there is none. Oh yeah, you don't deal with facts or evidence. Are you sure that it is not underwater dragons, or giant electric eels? The best science at this time is that the deep oceans are rising in temperature due to global warming and acting as a temporary heat sink thus lowering the increase in surface temperatures. That global warming is occuring due to increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is a matter of scientific fact.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/fasullo/m ... talNCC.pdf

The point being made Dog is that there is a virtually limiless amount of variables, and an infinite number of combinations of them, which may be at the core of why the temperatures are rising at the bottom of the sea, only a few of which are known, and fewer still are fully understood. When you say "the best science at this time", what you really mean is the best WAG that can be made given the very limited understanding we have of the entire system and how it operates, isn't it? Isn't that really at the heart of the matter as to why the predicted warming hasn't mainfested itself as expected? The system is so large, so complex, with so many variables, that it is virtually impossible to even begin to account for all the possibilites that exist? What the current science is attempting to do is reverse engineer the process in the hope that they might stumble onto the correct series of events. What do you suppose the chances of success are given the infinite number of possibilities that exist?

The climate is changing, it is always changing, it always will be changing. The one constant in the universe is that it is constantly changing. The planet has been both significantly warmer than it currently is and significantly cooler than it currently is. To the best of my knowledge the climate has never, ever, been a stagnant constant, has it? Would it not be a fair statement to say that the planet's climate is a dynamic one that is constantly changing? The hubris it takes to even begin to believe that the human species is in control of the planetary climate is simply beyond my comprehension.

hillfarmer wrote: You're not going to convince printsmith. For this type of individual this is a religion based on the belief that nothing should be allowed which contravenes my ability to do what every I want. Only the psuedoscience which supports that mantra is allowable. I applaud the willingness to step up, refute that psuedoscience and defend science and logic. It is abundantly clear that climate change is here. Anyone who is the least bit aware of their surroundings here in the mountains see the evidence of that change. When 97% of scientists and all reputable scientific organizations point to the evidence that man is contributing to that change, it is abundantly clear that we need to find ways to mitigate our impact.

And apparently I wont be able to convince people to debate the real issue, no matter if there is global warming or not, is there anything of significance we can do about it. We can squeeze the balloon, but it will just bulge somewhere else. Not not engage this issue by either side just shows that the ONLY goals are to argue until one side gets to force the other side to do something. This is an argument of who gets to be in charge, it has very little to do with influencing the environment. In the end if either side pushes a change without any real evidence that it will make a difference (regardless if warming or cooling is happening), would make you a tyrant.

Bottom line, is that we do not have enough collective influence over enough people to make a difference no matter what is happening to global temperatures.

Can someone tell me why people don't want to engage this part of the issue? Why is everyone willing to stand in the face of a 10,000 acre fire and believe they can pee in out? It does not matter who is right ona this when you have no influence over the future of it. You can only have influence in forcing a few people what to do, maybe a couple % of the population in the extreme. This is wasted passion by many people that likely have used 10x as much energy and pollution in their lives than 100 generations needed.

Will anyone engage the real issue here? Does anyone actually care about more than being right on an issue they have no influence over? Anyone pushing for people to react to global warming use far less energy than others and willing to brag about it, or are you just waiting until EVERYONE is forced to do your bidding before you do it yourself, you know, like a proper hypocrite.