Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Global Warming


Recommended Posts

My point was the ridiculous notion of the US being the culprit of carbon pollution, and the futility of attempting to empty the Atlantic ocean with a tea spoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 minutes ago, bgavin said:

My point was the ridiculous notion of the US being the culprit of carbon pollution, and the futility of attempting to empty the Atlantic ocean with a tea spoon.

You're right-it is a truly ridiculous notion that was invented as the means to disempower the capitalist nations of the world and lead to a single (Communist) world government (UN Agenda 21).

 

added:  As an Old School trained scientist from the 1960s-70s, it grieves me to see our Leftist universities now teaching young scientists that it is acceptable to permutate the science to accomplish political agenda needs.  Somehow we have allowed the Leftist media to become the universities' principal science mouthpiece to the huge lay public, who vote, but do not often fully understand the details. 

In doing so, we have hybridized pure science (Sciencia: the search for true knowledge) with obvious media agenda spin-doctoring and filtering.   No long term good can come from that hybridization or from the people who spawned it. (IMO) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ain't it funny that Mr. Gore chose 1978 as his base Year, to use as a marker for Global Warming? This was the year that had real Scientists worried that we were about to enter a New ICE AGE...  

The Earths temperatures Fluctuate from a mean average both ways, Higher and Lower by 3.5 degrees Celsius giving a range of 7 Degrees. In 1978 we were below the average range by about 1 degree C, Today we are .5 of degree below the average temp range on the upward end of average, while still within the 7 Degree C average range. 

Want to blow a pot users Mind show them that the big legal growers add extra CO2 to there grow opps ...

 

Jabez Cowboy

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

It would appear that about 93% of scientists agree ............ with whoever is paying them .....     :mellow:

Yeah.

They have a name for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK let me see if I can summarize all the arguments here.

 

1. As long as I can find a fact that supports whatever point I'm trying to make, it's ok to claim I just proved my case and ignore all the facts that don't suit me. Those can all be discounted just by changing the subject and listing another fact I like. 

2. Science keeps changing it's story, that means we can say the science now is either right or wrong depending on which we prefer because clearly no new information has been learned since the 70s. 

3. As long as we can come up with an excuse that we say sounds good, there's no need to try anything that might help (especially if we don't want to,  or if we just need to be against the other side, or if we say something truly profound like "we shouldn't do the right thing unless everybody else does first"). 

4. Governments screw everything up, so it makes sense to be against whatever they say as long as it's something we don't like. 

5. For billions of years our only role regarding the climate was to observe and try to adapt, and nothing we do has ever actually changed or even really influenced it. This means now that there's almost 8 billion of us in the same space, with all our resource consumption to make a place to live and to raise livestock for food and to grow crops for us and our livestock, and all our generation of carbon and other emissions as well as all our waste, can still be assumed to have the same lack of any effect at all on our ecosystem. Therefore, nobody should ever jump to the conclusion that we're complete idiots if we think this situation is even a little bit sustainable.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

OK let me see if I can summarize all the arguments here.

 

1. As long as I can find a fact that supports whatever point I'm trying to make, it's ok to claim I just proved my case and ignore all the facts that don't suit me. Those can all be discounted just by changing the subject and listing another fact I like. 

2. Science keeps changing it's story, that means we can say the science now is either right or wrong depending on which we prefer because clearly no new information has been learned since the 70s. 

3. As long as we can come up with an excuse that we say sounds good, there's no need to try anything that might help (especially if we don't want to,  or if we just need to be against the other side, or if we say something truly profound like "we shouldn't do the right thing unless everybody else does first"). 

4. Governments screw everything up, so it makes sense to be against whatever they say as long as it's something we don't like. 

5. For billions of years our only role regarding the climate was to observe and try to adapt, and nothing we do has ever actually changed or even really influenced it. This means now that there's almost 8 billion of us in the same space, with all our resource consumption to make a place to live and to raise livestock for food and to grow crops for us and our livestock, and all our generation of carbon and other emissions as well as all our waste, can still be assumed to have the same lack of any effect at all on our ecosystem. Therefore, nobody should ever jump to the conclusion that we're complete idiots if we think this situation is even a little bit sustainable.

 

There's no doubt that 8 Billion of us have altered the Earth surface substantially and that has had adverse impacts upon many of the Earth's vital functions.  It goes without saying that effort needs to be put forward to avoid those impacts insomuch as practical.   I think we are in full agreement there.  Nobody likes air pollution. 

 

 But the issue under discussion  here is whether those human caused modifications alone are really of a magnitude that can explain and account for what is being reported as observed catastrophic, long-term changes in the Earth's climate.  As yet, the assertions that anthropogenic climate change (ACC) is of that scope and magnitude remains an unproven theory, with very little tangible evidence in its support.  It is far from conclusively proven, despite what politicians and the media daily try to foist upon us.   In fact, almost all of the predictions fostered so far by the U.N.'s IPCC, NOAA, or NASA have failed to tangibly occur, except in their highly manipulated computer modelling outputs and daily claimed "new climatic record" setting (also curiously based on their own modelling). 

 

The problem is a basic issue of science.  Real "Science" has to be about objectively testing theories and hypotheses; evaluating their validity based upon actual tangible, measurable, and repeatable observations.  Simply designing a computer model to evaluate historic metadata and then using its outputs to assert claims of broad scientific popularity of a particular line of reasoning is insufficient.  That is not science. 

Science is not about concensus.  It is about repeatability of real world  observations.  Peer acceptance is not popularity or voting, contrary to what our media is telling us.   It is about hypothesis testing being properly performed by different objective and   independent entities  who arrive at the same repeatable, measurable result. 

 

It is improper to  design studies or computer models to prove what you think you already know.   Proper scientific form is to design the tests based on "null hypothesis" testing--essentially failing to be able to prove the opposite of your initial belief system, and thus validating a theory.

 

I can tell you, based on personal experience, that less than half of properly trained scientists agree with the claimed magnitude of anthropogenic climate change.  There are a number of university based "scientists", who do little testing other than to repetitiously model preexisting data, and who, in practice, do significant sorting and cherry-picking of the data decks that they allow to be included . 

 

I directly observed that kind of biased study design while working closely with government agencies, directed by political appointees who had mandates to support particular agendas.  I can recall receiving Director guidance that Governor Schwartzenegger would not consider any new research or management proposals for the California State Budget,  unless they were tied to some means of addressing human caused climate change.   Of very real importance is that  the same direction was issued to all State University department heads, professors and research grant coordinators.  There was simply no budget provided to fund evaluation of any disconcurrent position.  It became laughable, watching all of the State agencies fall into line. advancing proposals for everything from highways to social welfare, to law enforcement that were configured around climate change and the then-accepted Maurice Strong political viewpoint, expressed through the IPCC and enforced by the Ca State Governor.  

 

So before you just accept anthropogenic climate change to be a fact, consider and understand the political pressure forcing that point of view at every societal level.  The more that you drill down into the details of the temperature and atmospheric data and understand the modelling boundary conditions used, and the more that you evaluate the ACC magnitude claims in proper context with the other fields of Earth Science (like Vulcanology), the less likely it seems that ACC is very much more than a political instrument for uniting the masses. per Maurice Strong's original One World Government view.   

 

But just remember, when you hear claims like those of former President Obama, that "...95% of scientists agree with the catastrophic importance of man-caused climate change" that those claims are just that.  And even if they were true, science is not about consensus building. 

If it was, the Earth would be flat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

Yeah.

They have a name for that.

yup - sucking up to the cash cow , the earth has always been changing and nothing al gore says or all the political hacks do will alter that , just in for the ride and trying to not contribute to their plans for new world order 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusty Devil Dale, your post was long so I won't quote it but it's a good post. I generally agree with the whole post but I have a couple comments and if I'm wrong maybe you'll see it.

Most of the things you hear about climate sound like Chicken Little, but I've read a couple that are hard to discount. The current that circles up from the Gulf to the North Atlantic and back every year is not getting cooled as much up north so the Gulf water is staying warmer, and that is one of the factors affecting the recent hurricane seasons. And as I understand it from my reading, the Polar Vortex is at least one factor causing the freakishly cold temps outside the Arctic Circle because the Arctic Circle temps have recently been warmer. Maybe you've seen other studies that contradict my preconceived notions, but I just don't see how you can exclude the sheer number of us on the planet now as a causal factor.

My only other comment is about the scientific method, you're right about it but I would add that it depends on controlled experiments with reproducible results and the tough part is knowing all the controls you need so the results can be called valid.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicken Rustler, you have hit upon some key items that tend to support the notion that warming is occurring and changing weather, if not climatic patterns.  But the question still comes down to magnitude of effect.  

First, can the 1.8 deg C reported global thermal increase in 86 years really be consequential enough to create the phenomina that you identified.   Looking at the daily and yearly fluctuations in historical temperatures, which many regions of the world experience, it begs the question of whether or not 1.8 degrees variation over 86 years of  record keeping can be so consequential.  Many areas' daily fluctuations exceed 50 deg F.  Annual point-temperature ranges are double that, or more.  Those fluctuations have occurred every year since temperature recordation began.  Each hour, almost every point on the Earth surface fluctuates by 1.8 deg or more. 

 

Calculations of temporal thermal loading (heat accumulation) are being done, but they all have significant output uncertainty.  One problem is that nearly all of the attempts to interpret the observed long-term heat changes have used the IPCC's metadata --the same metadata that produced the 1.8 degree outcome using sorted, cherry-picked data.

 

  Thermal load calculations are very complex to begin with, having literally dozens of factoring variables.  Modelling decisions, boundary conditions, etc. thus become critical in the process.  But unfortunately, the small amount of measured thermal change (even assuming the measurements were made accurately enough to support that level if confidence, which is doubtful.) simply does not fall out as a significant factor with respect to other larger phenomena, such as solar cycles and events, changing Earth tilt with respect to the Sun, solar distance, geothermal events, and landscape changes like deforestation, volcanic eruptions or fires that modify the Earth's heat absorption.  

 

Despite all of the major efforts and expenditures being made, seeking to indoctrinate the world's people to accept the climate change theory,  the theory remains just that.  Oceans have not risen.  Polar ice has melted, but we cannot prove beyond assumption that man-induced changes caused that. 

 

Any natural global temperature cycle would reasonably be expected to produce some, if not all of the oceanic current heat accumulation, polar warming, or other phenomena. 

 

We are still waiting for those "properly controlled scientific tests" to carry Anthropogenic Climate Change beyond the theory stage.  But that has not deterred governments with particular agendas, the U.N.,  and the world media from jumping the gun and issuing almost daily reinforced warnings of impending calamity-- calamity that never has, and may never actually occur.  But the daily drone of hammering reinforcement of assumptions has created its own reality.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correlation is not causation.

 

Central Texas has been underwater 7 times in the geologic past.  If the seas rise again who is to say that's not the preferred setting.  Humans started WRITING and keeping records during an ice age. We think that's normal.

 

And really as long as the climate change experts keep buying homes on islands and beachfront while screaming about sea level rise, I'll reserve judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dusty Devil Dale thanks for a comprehensive and informed response, I think I followed it pretty well. My main takeaway from it is that it doesn't help in any way to throw out a number you like and pretend that it's more meaningful than it is. I don't think there's any way to deny the truth of that or the importance. And in hindsight I think my posts make it look like I'm taking the other side but I don't mean to. The arguments on the left aren't any better, I was just poking holes in the conservative arguments because those are the ones I see on this forum. The liberals talk a good game but they also tend to order Amazon Prime next-day delivery every damn day. To me, no matter how much we know and how much we don't know, it generally all comes down to one question. Should we try to do things that will help counter the effects of our crazy population growth? As far as I'm concerned, every little bit helps. I can already hear everybody's response, "But we do more than anybody else!". I think that's true, but so what? It's no reason to not also do something else IF it's a good idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

<snip>Should we try to do things that will help counter the effects of our crazy population growth? <snip>

This is the part I take issue with.  The sun is in a period of higher than normal activity, which necessarily will cause issues with the climate here.

 

Assuming that human activity is the only cause of climate that constantly changes anyway is the height of arrogance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

Dusty Devil Dale thanks for a comprehensive and informed response, I think I followed it pretty well. My main takeaway from it is that it doesn't help in any way to throw out a number you like and pretend that it's more meaningful than it is. I don't think there's any way to deny the truth of that or the importance. And in hindsight I think my posts make it look like I'm taking the other side but I don't mean to. The arguments on the left aren't any better, I was just poking holes in the conservative arguments because those are the ones I see on this forum. The liberals talk a good game but they also tend to order Amazon Prime next-day delivery every damn day. To me, no matter how much we know and how much we don't know, it generally all comes down to one question. Should we try to do things that will help counter the effects of our crazy population growth? As far as I'm concerned, every little bit helps. I can already hear everybody's response, "But we do more than anybody else!". I think that's true, but so what? It's no reason to not also do something else IF it's a good idea. 

I agree that it would make a much better world if everyone chose the High Road and did the right things because they want to.  But unfortunately, that whole idea gets squelched and terribly polarized when folks try to force their view of righteousness onto others through restrictive governmental regulation; particularly where the basis for doing it is weakly supported. 

 

Regulations, in general,  force a communistic "one size fits all" proposition, that really is not a good fit for many.   Caterpillar or Ford, or General Electric might be big enough to afford to voluntarily take the high road on Climate, and their marketing might actually show that it pays them to do that, by looking good and thus gaining market share among affluent who are willing to pay more for products.  But smaller businesses tryimg to stay viable, or moms and pops just trying to heat their home and keep it livable are often the meat sheep who get hurt deeply --too deeply. 

 

Carbon credits are an example of a perceived solution that does not work well for everyone.  They advance a false front, looking a lot like Capitalism.  But the concept breaks down unless you have a heavily subsidized society.  You have to be able to assume that everyone is wealthy enough to afford to either buy the credits that they need, or be required to pursue some other energy alternative that may or may not be viable for them.  As such, many are left with only a very poor array of options, requiring government dependency through taxpayer subsidies.   Such has become the case today with solar energy alternatives to fossil fuels.  Subsidies are not Capitalism--rather they represent wealth redistribution.  

 

In the process of trying to regulate to accomplish an environmental goal, one spin-off is backlash, if and when regulations become too onerous or invasive.  Backlash just pushes everyone further from the original premise --desirability of people voluntary choosing to tolerate some inconvenience associated with taking the "High Road". 

 

My pet peave is the efforts of the UN and its IPCC to hold summit conferences entirely for the purpose of bullying nations into accepting unwanted UN governance (not just regulation) and using the environment as their faux center post for acceptance.  Their entire motivation is flawed and disingenuous, when one considers the origins of their climate interest, with Maurice Strong, who invented and promoted a fake climate change "High Road" scheme as a veiled subway leading to One World (Communist) Government.  Realizing that, it is hard for me to forgive their data and data handling weaknesses and give their obvious soft, inadequate and agenda-laced "science" much credibility.   You simply  cannot build a strong environmental program on the back of weak or fake data; particularly with such a poor history of tangible predictability. 

 

I think time is diluting their initual worldwide momentum.  The big polluters do not intend to play along.  So what will it accomplish in the end except enmity?  Time is the enemy of deception.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Doc Shapiro said:

This is the part I take issue with.  The sun is in a period of higher than normal activity, which necessarily will cause issues with the climate here.

 

Assuming that human activity is the only cause of climate that constantly changes anyway is the height of arrogance.

And this is the kind of thinking I don't understand. Who cares if it's the sun, or if it's us, or if it's a bear wiping with a rabbit, no matter what causes it why would anybody not want to do something that can help? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

I agree that it would make a much better world if everyone chose the High Road and did the right things because they want to.  But unfortunately, that whole idea gets squelched and terribly polarized when folks try to force their view of righteousness onto others through restrictive governmental regulation; particularly where the basis for doing it is weakly supported. 

 

Regulations, in general,  force a communistic "one size fits all" proposition, that really is not a good fit for many.   Caterpillar or Ford, or General Electric might be big enough to afford to voluntarily take the high road on Climate, and their marketing might actually show that it pays them to do that, by looking good and thus gaining market share among affluent who are willing to pay more for products.  But smaller businesses tryimg to stay viable, or moms and pops just trying to heat their home and keep it livable are often the meat sheep who get hurt deeply --too deeply. 

 

Carbon credits are an example of a perceived solution that does not work well for everyone.  They advance a false front, looking a lot like Capitalism.  But the concept breaks down unless you have a heavily subsidized society.  You have to be able to assume that everyone is wealthy enough to afford to either buy the credits that they need, or be required to pursue some other energy alternative that may or may not be viable for them.  As such, many are left with only a very poor array of options, requiring government dependency through taxpayer subsidies.   Such has become the case today with solar energy alternatives to fossil fuels.  Subsidies are not Capitalism--rather they represent wealth redistribution.  

 

In the process of trying to regulate to accomplish an environmental goal, one spin-off is backlash, if and when regulations become too onerous or invasive.  Backlash just pushes everyone further from the original premise --desirability of people voluntary choosing to tolerate some inconvenience associated with taking the "High Road". 

 

My pet peave is the efforts of the UN and its IPCC to hold summit conferences entirely for the purpose of bullying nations into accepting unwanted UN governance (not just regulation) and using the environment as their faux center post for acceptance.  Their entire motivation is flawed and disingenuous, when one considers the origins of their climate interest, with Maurice Strong, who invented and promoted a fake climate change "High Road" scheme as a veiled subway leading to One World (Communist) Government.  Realizing that, it is hard for me to forgive their data and data handling weaknesses and give their obvious soft, inadequate and agenda-laced "science" much credibility.   You simply  cannot build a strong environmental program on the back of weak or fake data; particularly with such a poor history of tangible predictability. 

 

I think time is diluting their initual worldwide momentum.  The big polluters do not intend to play along.  So what will it accomplish in the end except enmity?  Time is the enemy of deception.  

I think now we're having two different discussions. I was talking about people making up excuses to not do anything, as far as regulations it sounds like I already think exactly the same way you do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

Jasper Yates Jan 7 2022 84e57d6ed937cb7c3a4a9d_316c3f21_640.jpg

Maybe you can explain what any of this has to with what we're talking about? Sounds like you're just making up excuses for why you're not gonna be responsible and nobody can make you! Are you the kind of person that would go camping and then leave without cleaning up the site? If not then why would you refuse to do anything to reduce emissions or waste or consumption? I don't get it. 

At least you made me think of something while I was typing this. You can reject climate change mantra all you want, chances are you'll be right a lot of the time. But rejecting that doesn't mean you also have to reject good ideas for doing things that will help. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

And this is the kind of thinking I don't understand. Who cares if it's the sun, or if it's us, or if it's a bear wiping with a rabbit, no matter what causes it why would anybody not want to do something that can help? 

 

Yes, we should endeavor to not pollute for the simple reason that we don't need to kill ourselves.  That's simple self survival.

 

Here's the rub, what can actually help?  Carbon credits all that other stuff just adds more power to central governments.  Heck, a good volcanic eruption spews out more than we do by a massive margin.  The Earth warms and cools.  It has multiple times throughout recorded geologic history, and will continue to do so.  Climate is not stable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

And this is the kind of thinking I don't understand. Who cares if it's the sun, or if it's us, or if it's a bear wiping with a rabbit, no matter what causes it why would anybody not want to do something that can help? 

But IMO, they need to know it is really helping and not just a hysterical "We've got to do something!" Chicken Little type response, or political window dressing, such as we've seen from anti gun people claiming they can reduce crime by reducing gun availability, when they already know that does not work.  The solutions have to make logical sense and not be just a veil for a deceptive move to gain power over people, using public safety or Earth safety as cover.   

 

The remedial measures also need to be reasonably doable and not render people's lives ineffective, like the recent California prohibition on the sale of machines using small gasoline engines.  Chainsaws, generators  and snow blowers are pretty essential to many.  Prohibiting them makes little global climate difference, but spawns huge backlash and animosity to the whole effort to reduce our impacts. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/13/2022 at 9:19 AM, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

Maybe you can explain what any of this has to with what we're talking about? Sounds like you're just making up excuses for why you're not gonna be responsible and nobody can make you! 

# 1 Are you the kind of person that would go camping and then leave without cleaning up the site?

#2 If not then why would you refuse to do anything to reduce emissions or waste or consumption? I don't get it. 

#3 At least you made me think of something while I was typing this. You can reject climate change mantra all you want, chances are you'll be right a lot of the time. But rejecting that doesn't mean you also have to reject good ideas for doing things that will help. 

The theme of that meme was to point out the things that are happening in our "neighbourhood" where man does not exist and yet extreme conditions exist without our input.

 

#1 Definitely Not! I and my family left our sites and and the areas we hiked through as pristine as we found it or better! We were and are "Green" long before it became fashionable, going back to the 1940's when my parents camped in Banff and Jasper. 

#2 If you are trying to sell me on the concept that we should do something about the use of finite resources such as metals, petroleum etc. I'm with you. Where you and I diverge is on the choice between beggaring our society and ourselves, when there as yet, are few viable alternatives and governments answer is the redistribution of wealth and the major emission culprits, China and India either don't care or are unwilling to do anything.

 

#3 Your concern about the theme of that MEME is noted but consider that sciences of geology, botany, zoology, astronomy and archeology tell us that this has happened many times before and may have more to do with the sun, solar winds, magnetic shift and volcanic action, none of which we can control, only mitigate. We have been through many similar cycles over the millennia, long before man appeared on the scene. Do we have an impact on the climate? Certainly!. But it is infinitesimal compared to those things we have no control over and can only mitigate. You mention good ideas that will help. Do you consider the mining and use of lithium, a finite resource, a good idea to use to power EVs? Electric cars for example: $45 to $75K for a vehicle that will die and have to be scrapped in 8 or so years, because the Lithium batteries are dead? What do you intend to do with those dead batteries? Ever see a Lithium mine and the conditions in and around it?

We are going to have to find a better way and better alternatives such as hydrogen for example: The Germans had a submarine powered by if in WWII. It failed, but our science has progressed in the near 80 years since then.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

Maybe you can explain what any of this has to with what we're talking about? Sounds like you're just making up excuses for why you're not gonna be responsible and nobody can make you! Are you the kind of person that would go camping and then leave without cleaning up the site? If not then why would you refuse to do anything to reduce emissions or waste or consumption? I don't get it. 

At least you made me think of something while I was typing this. You can reject climate change mantra all you want, chances are you'll be right a lot of the time. But rejecting that doesn't mean you also have to reject good ideas for doing things that will help. 

Yep poor polar bears. The global warming uh wait climate change isn't really about money either is it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5there is something about changes that occur in the natural rhythm, of life and something else about the forced changes that you are pushing , the buggy whip went away because change occurred in a natural way - now you want to legislate it without looking at the overall perspective of it b, yes electric cars might not polute as much - jury is out as you have not dealt with the dead batteries or the power source to charge them yet , or the stress on the electric grid that you are now strapping with no supply of fuel for , 

 

in the end if you let things run their course instead of force feeding it you may actualoly see what you want because of public demand , anyone that currently supports electric cars is wrong , till you find a source for the electric power and a environmentally friendly source to store it in , , let science evolve , it will get there but paying existing stagnent scientists to plkay around wont do it , 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Top Scientists Warn: Sea Gods Angry

[ed. note: well that didn't take long. CNN "science" "writer" Alan Weisman examines the Icelandic volcano eruption and deduces the cause: an angry Gaia striking back at us carbon sinners. In honor of Earth Week, I'm recycling... this bit that first appeared here in Nov 2004. Hat tip: Ed Driscoll]

 

\

Washington, DC - Pointing to the devastating weekend Indian Ocean tsunami that left over 24,000 dead, an international blue ribbon committee of climatologists and ecoscientists today issued a stark warning that man-made pollutants have increasingly "make water spirits angry."

The blunt conclusion prefaced a 2300 page meta-analysis of hundreds of scientific studies and computer models detailing links between human industrial activity and wrathful eco-deities. Entitled "Fire Bad: Fire Very Bad," the report warns that the planet faces additional catastrophies unless drastic regulatory action is taken to appease Earthen-furies.

"Unclean money devils anger sacred water spirit Tai-Waku," explained Martin Knudson of Scripps Oceanic Institute. "He now call angry to son the whale, 'make slap with anger-tails! Bring vengeance-surf to villagers!'" 

While most empirical evidence supports the theory of wrathful whale-tail slappings, some scientists are exploring alternative hypotheses for the weekend tsunami. Ecobiologist Jane Geary of UC Santa Cruz points to mounting evidence that the ocean spirit-world may have been driven to gastrointestinal rage by gas-guzzling SUVs.

"Thunder-wagon make smoke cloud of greenhouse gas," explained Geary. "hungry Tai-Waku eat smoke from thunder-wagon, pass giant wind with mighty fury."

Peter Novak, chief science officer of the Sierra Club, dismissed Geary's "Divine Fart" theory, arguing it was more likely that SUVs had triggered the tsunami via a spirit underword sexual encounter.

"Wheels of thunder-wagons wake up Big Earth Spirit-Mother, make to crazy tingle in hairy child-place. She now go to water lair of Tai-Waku, make big angry love on tectonic plate," said Novak. "Big Earth Spirit-Mother say, 'if ocean rocking, don't come a-knocking.'"

Although they disagree on the precise causes of the wrathful spirit world, scientists were largely unanimous in recommending immediate global regulatory action. Remedial steps suggested in the report include ratification of the Kyoto treaty, elimination of automobiles, volcanic altars for virgin sacrifices, creation of a sustainable urine-based economy, and improved faculty dental benefits.

"If not act now, it too late," said report editor Paul Erlich of Stanford University.

Erlich, whose 1978 best seller "Ice Time Come Soon" is widely credited with saving millions of lives by warning of the massive age of glaciation that threatened Earth during the 1980s, said inaction might anger the spirit world further.

"Me not know when Tai-Waku make wrath again," said Erlich. "Me need more grant money."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said:

No, force feeding it is their way to try to control it. And make money doing it.

i fo not disagree , was hust hoping someone on the other side was listening to reason , the buggy whip did not disappear overnight , but it did go away , look at all the methane they got rid of by eliminating horses in a natural way .........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dirty Dan Dawkins said:

I reject the climate change mantra(s).

 

image.thumb.jpeg.d2149ea742fd5cb5ad407840599c33e4.jpeg

ive seen this all my life - as long as the media is in the pocket of those trying to fill theirs we will never see both sides represented equally 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some good things being said by some people, but mostly it's still just a bunch of making excuses and refusing to listen to anything that doesn't match your spoon fed talking points. Maybe one day you'll catch on that showing how dumb some of the ideas are doesn't mean you should reject the other ideas too, and that doing something that helps just a little bit is still better than waiting until somebody comes up with something that will help a lot. 

And I really don't see why some people keep repeating the same thing over and over, that throughout our entire history we have had practically no effect on the climate so it must still be true. Our population didn't explode until a few hundred years ago, in the time scale we're talking about that's extremely sudden and extremely drastic. If you really think we can keep doing things the same way without making it worse, then you've got some more thinking to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats wrong with simply getting weather forecast from the Farmers Almanac and Puxatawney Phil? They are as reliable and as trustworthy as any media outlet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My wife and I have noticed that NOAA National Weather Service site specific predictions are consistently (every day) predicting daily temperatute highs and nightly lows from 4 to 8 deg F. warmer than what actually occurs and gets reported elsewhere.   It is most obvious when they predict frost during 39 degree nights  (and hard freezes then occur that freeze watering troughs).  But in summer they always predict about 3 to 6 degrees high -- but never lower than what occurs.   We do not know the reason.  The station they are reporting for is only 1/2 mile from us.  

Hopefully they are not using high prediction to create the perception of warmer temperatures, to make their climatic predictions and reported record high temperatures seem more believable.  


That all relates to another set of observations.  Some time ago, I looked up historical summer high temperatures in the California Data Evaluation Center ( CDEC) databases, for periods dating back to more than a decade ago and compared those data to the daily highs that the same agencies published back at the time, in written records  (which  are available in government libraries).  The historical temperatures shown in the modern CDEC are consistently lower than the historically reported and published/printed numbers-- I'm some cases by as much a 9 deg. F. These discrepancies appear commonly for identical (serially numbered) permanent measurement  stations,  at the same dates and times. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

My wife and I have noticed that NOAA National Weather Service site specific predictions are consistently (every day) predicting daily temperatute highs and nightly lows from 4 to 8 deg F. warmer than what actually occurs and gets reported elsewhere.   It is most obvious when they predict frost during 39 degree nights  (and hard freezes then occur that freeze watering troughs).  But in summer they always predict about 3 to 6 degrees high -- but never lower than what occurs.   We do not know the reason.  The station they are reporting for is only 1/2 mile from us.  

Hopefully they are not using high prediction to create the perception of warmer temperatures, to make their climatic predictions and reported record high temperatures seem more believable.  


That all relates to another set of observations.  Some time ago, I looked up historical summer high temperatures in the California Data Evaluation Center ( CDEC) databases, for periods dating back to more than a decade ago and compared those data to the daily highs that the same agencies published back at the time, in written records  (which  are available in government libraries).  The historical temperatures shown in the modern CDEC are consistently lower than the historically reported and published/printed numbers-- I'm some cases by as much a 9 deg. F. These discrepancies appear commonly for identical (serially numbered) permanent measurement  stations,  at the same dates and times. 

Do you know whether this could be explained by a station being located somewhere without trees or with a lot of concrete? It seems like too big a difference for that. Back in the 70s I was under the impression that NOAA was a very highly respected organization, in recent years I've heard things that make me think that's not as true any more. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said:

Do you know whether this could be explained by a station being located somewhere without trees or with a lot of concrete? It seems like too big a difference for that. Back in the 70s I was under the impression that NOAA was a very highly respected organization, in recent years I've heard things that make me think that's not as true any more. 

Data taken at a particular point in time at a particular location, with a particular measurement instrument should not appear  reported differently in two different places.  The 1980 record says one thing, and the CDEC says something else.   And all of the CDEC differences that I observed  show cooler historical temperatures than what was published at the time --for the exact same instruments and permanent location numbers.  

 

It sure appears an algorithm has somewhere been applied, for whatever reason, to alter the records from what historically was recorded/ published in official reports at the time(s).  Unfortunaty, I understand CDEC, is the major comprehensive California data source being used by NOAA in their proprietary climate modelling.  

 

If you are in California, you can fairly easily look for yourself.  The historically published hard-copy reports of air and water temperature are available for inspection in the State Library in Sacramento, or at most Regional DWR offices, and probably in many university libraries.   The CDEC database is a freeware online service.  ( I suggest you start by looking at years between 1975 and 1980. )

 

My understanding from talking with a DWR engineer several years ago was that a whistleblower lawsuit was pending that would examine whether an altering algorithm had been applied.  It was apparently in the discovery stages at that time.  I've not heard any more about it or it's outcomes since.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dusty Devil Dale said:

Data taken at a particular point in time at a particular location, with a particular measurement instrument should not appear  reported differently in two different places.  The 1980 record says one thing, and the CDEC says something else.   And all of the CDEC differences that I observed  show cooler historical temperatures than what was published at the time --for the exact same instruments and permanent location numbers.  

 

It sure appears an algorithm has somewhere been applied, for whatever reason, to alter the records from what historically was recorded/ published in official reports at the time(s).  Unfortunaty, I understand CDEC, is the major comprehensive California data source being used by NOAA in their proprietary climate modelling.  

 

If you are in California, you can fairly easily look for yourself.  The historically published hard-copy reports of air and water temperature are available for inspection in the State Library in Sacramento, or at most Regional DWR offices, and probably in many university libraries.   The CDEC database is a freeware online service.  ( I suggest you start by looking at years between 1975 and 1980. )

 

My understanding from talking with a DWR engineer several years ago was that a whistleblower lawsuit was pending that would examine whether an altering algorithm had been applied.  It was apparently in the discovery stages at that time.  I've not heard any more about it or it's outcomes since.  

Thanks for the post. This is off topic but I just noticed you're from central CA. I was at Beale AFB north of Sac for a while and I also worked down at Palmdale, two great areas for motorcycle riding and enjoying some beautiful nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.