More on 'global warming'
In my opinion, the great climate debate, which has swung from cooling to warming over the last 40 years is really about political power.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
And Michael Mann is a dry-labber. So are his colleagues.
I happen to own a solar company, so professionally, I suppose i'm solidly on the green side, but to me the green I'm after is the Greenback. I only got into the field because I saw an enormous potential to collect free money in the form of raw sunshine.
16 years later I wish there was a way I could put a pin in the discussion or just bury it. The climate changes. so what! Until the Alarmists can convincingly demonstrate what the CORRECT climate is, they can all go take a flying leap off the nearest cliff. I'm tired of arguing with them.
--In Liberty
I stayed away from solar because of this fact. It wouldn't be prudent seeing how inefficient solar is and how much more cloudy the future will be.
A battery back up would be my choice; using solar, wind and at least another source to keep them charged.
Can't blame you for cashing in on the trend, in some parts of the country it will be valuable; in others, it won't help much but still, better than doing nothing to obtain at least some degree of self sufficiency.
I do lots of business in Alaska and so far this summer they are having the coldest summer in years. maybe this is all a tell tale sign of what is to come this coming winter. so much for global warming.
A proper observation of history will ensure one will not be caught with their pants down.
It is very clear that the direct greenhouse effect of the greenhouse gasses is wholly incapable of changing the temperature as much as is asserted (perhaps the effect is consistent with the unadjusted data). The ONLY models that correlate include hypothesized effects such a CO2 increasing water vapor. These effects are not understood or physics-based. Any climatologist will confirm this, perhaps after obfuscating for a while.
Those that know, know that they do not know, but refuse to disclose their ignorance to preserve power. Just like churches...
I have done my own green thing even though I'm not in the climate change camp. I have solar panels on my roof, I just purchased a used Nissan Leaf (which a leased vehicle) and yes the battery pack is slightly depleted (9 out 12). I did purchase an extended warranty which covers the battery pack. The vehicle is a blast to drive around town. Plus, My wife and I keep adding trees to our property (we do get our hands dirty).
That's my recommendation to the Climate Change freaks stop talking and personally do something ie, solar panels, buy electric cars, & plant trees, instead of browbeating everyone else.
There's probably a book on this. It's not a question that can be answered while standing on one foot.
What does this mean? What is the assumption? What is internal or external challenge?
Maybe you cannot explain it in this forum. If you ever are in my area maybe we could go to dinner. Maybe I would get it of a sudden in person. Thanks for trying.
The massive conspiracy view reminds me of people with a grave disease who do research on their own and conclude big pharma has engineered a conspiracy surrounding their illness and it actually can be treated with homeopathic remedies. "Show me the evidence that Western (they mean science-based) medicine is correct. Show me abstracts from peer-reviewed oncology journals." I don't know what to tell them. If there's a conspiracy that can be found out easily by a dilettante reading the abstracts, then everything I know is wrong. Maybe there's a massive conspiracy, and they've figured it out.
As for homeopathy, it should have been thrown on the pseudoscience pile long ago. It takes little thought to believe that when a medicine is diluted at 30C that one has one molecule of medicine to 100^30 molecules of solvent or in other words no chance of medicine in, say, a sample of a few cc dose. Also there is absolutely no evidence that the solvent has somehow remembered that some medicine has been diluted in it. Of course, some lucky person might get a molecule of the medicine in a dose. Nothing but a placebo.
If you may recall, I was ambivalent on this subject a few years ago when I joined the Gulch. At one point I argued that the movement had benefit, regardless of being right, in that if enough renewable sources were developed, the Middle East would be choked of funding for terrorism. I argued this with my brother for a while. However, I studied and studied to develop a understanding of the basics. As I have noted several things are absolutely true, but not simplified in the media:
1. Human produced greenhouse gasses can not produce the measured warming by direct means (the affect of the reflected and absorbed radiation in the atmosphere).
2. All models with reasonable correlation to the modern warming (minus the recent plateau) include an arbitrary, hypothetical water vapor positive feedback mechanism to provide for the effect.
These two facts, a knowledgeable climate scientist will acknowledge, perhaps begrudgingly.
3. This information is completely obfuscated in the net media, and the public is almost completely ignorant of it.
4. The behavior of the net public is a lynch mob, labeling alternate views, asserting alternate views are anti-environment. It is almost impossible to discuss this in many situations without hostility, which is absurd, and precisely the type of behavior ignorant people use to avoid exposing their ignorance.
There is nothing good from decisions made in ignorance. This is a feel-good, philanthropic movement just like socialism. It may be correct, but not for any reason presented to date.
Don't expect him to understand the evidence you have presented because it doesn't agree with his GW religious belief. He uses just as much rational thought on this issue as he does when voting.
This is an objectivist site. You need to state objective facts and theories. If you don't personally know the science behind the conclusions being offered, perhaps you should not be so enthusiastic about supporting them. And if you do know, share.
This is a pretty amazingly capable group of people.
You keep confidently stating there is a problem when even the IPCC projects a wide variety of projected increases (which are not tracking with reality). The news generally only covers the most extreme possibilities -- because it's not very interesting to say there will be minor warming and it will be generally beneficial.
I recently saw an article promoting what the sea level would be if all the ice melted -- even though no serious theory projects that.
If your semi-outsider perspective allows you to propose a hypothesis no one thought of that turns out to be true, esp something that up-ends our understanding of climatology, that would be great.
"it will be generally beneficial."
I know even less about this than climate science, but I thought the evidence was overwhelming it will be a net cost, unless we were heading toward a glacial maximum on the cycle of glaciation/deglaciation. I would be shocked to learn I misunderstood this basic fact. This is so far outside my area though. I would probably struggle to understand even the abstracts of papers in this field.
You are entitled to "believe", but it is NOT an Objectivity position.
We must be completely talking past each other. Above on this thread I specifically said belief isn't part of science. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I've also said repeatedly that the political ramifications of scientific finding are another matter. Even when I say the opposite, you say I'm talking about belief and politics.
I stand by specifically what I said.
Unfortunately, you can't tell the difference, and you continue to support the anthropomorphic global warming lies. It's comical.
I actually agree with this. I suspect because burning stuff is associated with trillions of dollars of economic activity,there is very strong political pressure to get a certain, desirable answer. But I cannot make stuff up based on that. I have to accept the data we have today.
Who pays you to come here and spread these lies?
There are some who propagate nonsense, not because they get paid which would be
bad enough, but because their peer group admires this flavor-of-the-month group-think.
Anything that shows you are concerned to save the planet gets brownie points, the
main cost is putting aside rationality.
The technical terms are virtue signalling, moral posturing, and what I call (fake) altruism.
To act from self-interest without values by taking bribes is bad.
Acting out of thoughtless altruism is worse.
We definitely have a gene pool problem to be addressed atop Aztec and Mayan pyramids.
--besides leaving a carbon trail while a pilot works at flying his royal butt around in a private jet.
The angry with polluting humans sun god would be deemed thoroughly pleased for appeased.
Otherwise for everyone else, his sacrifice would just be good riddance to foul oral emissions.
As if the sun could care.
If you are familiar with this recent report, you will now know that the rise in CO2 only came AFTER the rise in the earth's temperature.
This does stand what the "Man-made" Global Warming/Climate Change have been asserting. I guess now these Science "whores" (sorry, did not intend to demean a profession that actually produces something for a profit) will have to "defend" their (pardon the expression - "Junk" science) with a better empirical approach.
I can't wait to see a real debate on this issue!