TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jun 23, 2014 19:35:35 GMT -5
I don't read random WordPress articles, especially not about something as settled as climate change. This is the stupidest crusade that the right has. It's not just a random Wordpress article! It was linked to by Drudge! It's an unrandom Wordpress article!
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,390
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Jun 23, 2014 19:43:02 GMT -5
I don't read random WordPress articles, especially not about something as settled as climate change. This is the stupidest crusade that the right has. Yea, that horse is so dead, I'm not sure why people keep beating it.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,305
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 23, 2014 20:02:49 GMT -5
I'm in the camp that can't understand some not getting on board with climate change. Putting that aside, I really, really don't understand why being more ecologically conscious in general is a bad thing as long as the economic effect on the consumer is within reason. You don't have to believe in climate change. It's still a good idea to move toward cleaner, renewable energy if only from the perspective that it gives us one less tie to the Middle East and, regardless of the climate and the sea level, it's good for the planet and its inhabitants.
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on Jun 23, 2014 21:16:01 GMT -5
I'm in the camp that can't understand some not getting on board with climate change. Putting that aside, I really, really don't understand why being more ecologically conscious in general is a bad thing as long as the economic effect on the consumer is within reason. You don't have to believe in climate change. It's still a good idea to move toward cleaner, renewable energy if only from the perspective that it gives us one less tie to the Middle East and, regardless of the climate and the sea level, it's good for the planet and its inhabitants. That's my thing: I just don't get arguing vehemently against it. I get being ambivalent, but not offended by the concept to the point of making full out attacks against the scientific method.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,305
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 23, 2014 23:10:23 GMT -5
I can understand questioning the science. Even, to a degree, wanting to find evidence that climate change isn't real. No one wants to believe that it's bad and is going to get worse and that it may already be nearing or at the point that it's too late to fix much of anything. I can't really wrap my head around getting all conspiracy theorist about adjustments to measurements that weren't made in any sort of secrecy but were made, seemingly, to allow for comparability. There's nothing shocking about temperatures being hotter in cities or during different times of the day. If you've ever commuted into a city or taken lunch at 12 as opposed to 2, you're not exactly shocked. There's a reason roofers go to work before the sun comes up. It's not because they have plans in the late afternoon. But, again, put all of that aside. It's still good for the health of the planet and every organism on it to pollute less and develop cleaner, self-sustaining methods of satisfying energy needs. As of right now, if you're a believer in climate change and the information you have is, in fact, correct, what we do as a country means very little globally if China and India don't get on board. That said, it still doesn't make cleaner energy and efforts toward developing energy independence bad endeavors. In fact, that should be a priority as it's a need of many oil poor nations and we, as a country, are in dire need of developing exportable technologies from a trade deficit perspective as well as a jobs perspective. Argue the semantics at your leisure. But do the business of getting greener during the day. When you're kicking back after a hard day of work, debate the reasoning behind it. Won't change the fact that it's just a good idea and the right way to go if it's feasible.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,305
|
Post by tashoya on Jun 23, 2014 23:21:43 GMT -5
In retrospect, I guess I should have read all of the posts prior. Is this thread only about debating whether or not climate change is something real and not at all about cleaner energy sources and whether or not that's something worth pursuing as a nation? If it's just a debate about whether or not climate change is real, considering science never 100% proves anything, why not go with the safer route? The cleaner route? The route that, if you're wrong, doesn't expedite the rising of the seas that could, according to almost every credible source, sink large parts of the US coastline. If we don't change and things don't get worse, I'll gladly say I'm sorry and buy you a drink while lamenting that we're still dependent on foreign oil and the smog in California keeps getting worse and having a car that struggles to get 25 miles to the gallon for no reason at all. I'll also wonder how you knew so much when a massive majority of people that dedicate their lives to such things are telling you there's a very real issue. I can pick a long shot at a Kentucky Derby and win. But I wouldn't say that I knew I was going to. I also wouldn't wonder why others thought I was crazy for picking the horse.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jun 23, 2014 23:41:40 GMT -5
In retrospect, I guess I should have read all of the posts prior. Is this thread only about debating whether or not climate change is something real and not at all about cleaner energy sources and whether or not that's something worth pursuing as a nation? If it's just a debate about whether or not climate change is real, considering science never 100% proves anything, why not go with the safer route? The cleaner route? The route that, if you're wrong, doesn't expedite the rising of the seas that could, according to almost every credible source, sink large parts of the US coastline. If we don't change and things don't get worse, I'll gladly say I'm sorry and buy you a drink while lamenting that we're still dependent on foreign oil and the smog in California keeps getting worse and having a car that struggles to get 25 miles to the gallon for no reason at all. I'll also wonder how you knew so much when a massive majority of people that dedicate their lives to such things are telling you there's a very real issue. I can pick a long shot at a Kentucky Derby and win. But I wouldn't say that I knew I was going to. I also wouldn't wonder why others thought I was crazy for picking the horse. The real debate should be whether it's worth it. I think it is, but when the govt starts handing out taxpayer money to companies with dubious technologies and campaign contributor sponsors all set to cash in no-bid contracts, then all of a sudden I'm not sold on that bill of goods. I'm especially for someone coming up with a cheap, clean energy source that will once and for all end all reliance on imported sources of energy. What I have been seeing is a lot of scare-mongering and cheap slogans like "settled science" (now THERE's the scientific method in a nutshell!) in yet another effort to throw money (skimmed by the correct people, of course) at a problem to solve it, instead of coming up with something that actually works. I am pro-clean energy, pro- energy self-suffiency for the US, and pro- technological improvements in our energy distribution. I am very anti- spending huge amounts of public money on pipe dreams and nest eggs for the politically connected. And I do believe that a REAL breakthrough in clean energy will be embraced by people on all sides of the current issue, and it should be.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jun 24, 2014 8:40:56 GMT -5
I think it is, but when the govt starts handing out taxpayer money to companies with dubious technologies and campaign contributor sponsors all set to cash in no-bid contracts, then all of a sudden I'm not sold on that bill of goods. I'm especially for someone coming up with a cheap, clean energy source that will once and for all end all reliance on imported sources of energy. What I have been seeing is a lot of scare-mongering and cheap slogans like "settled science" (now THERE's the scientific method in a nutshell!) in yet another effort to throw money (skimmed by the correct people, of course) at a problem to solve it, instead of coming up with something that actually works. I am pro-clean energy, pro- energy self-suffiency for the US, and pro- technological improvements in our energy distribution. I am very anti- spending huge amounts of public money on pipe dreams and nest eggs for the politically connected. And I do believe that a REAL breakthrough in clean energy will be embraced by people on all sides of the current issue, and it should be. How is that at all an issue with the new regulations?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 24, 2014 8:48:44 GMT -5
Does everyone admit that the source data would indicate mainland U.S. temperature has not increased since 1934? And, that the data have been adjusted in an attempt to make them an apples-to-apples comparison? Though there has never been an attempt to hide this, it certainly has gotten little attention. For those who believe in man-made climate change, it might help your case to admit that and loudly to explain to the public why and how these data were adjusted.
Secondly, it would behoove you to tell us your solution: (1) what should the U.S. do and (2) what effect your solution will have on global temperatures, the accent being on global.
Thirdly, what do you consider to be the achievable renewable energy contribution to the total U.S. power requirements by, say, twenty five years from now, that is: what percentage of our power needs could be expected by than.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jun 24, 2014 12:22:41 GMT -5
Ed, serious question here - if someone asked you a "we can't stop all abortions so what difference does it make and why bother spending any time or money on trying to prevent them" argument, would you treat it seriously?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 24, 2014 18:37:28 GMT -5
Ed, serious question here - if someone asked you a "we can't stop all abortions so what difference does it make and why bother spending any time or money on trying to prevent them" argument, would you treat it seriously? Thanks for trying to change the subject. You answer my questions and I'll answer yours.
|
|
|
Post by rustyshackleford on Jun 25, 2014 17:10:46 GMT -5
Does everyone admit that the source data would indicate mainland U.S. temperature has not increased since 1934? And, that the data have been adjusted in an attempt to make them an apples-to-apples comparison? Though there has never been an attempt to hide this, it certainly has gotten little attention. For those who believe in man-made climate change, it might help your case to admit that and loudly to explain to the public why and how these data were adjusted. Secondly, it would behoove you to tell us your solution: (1) what should the U.S. do and (2) what effect your solution will have on global temperatures, the accent being on global. Thirdly, what do you consider to be the achievable renewable energy contribution to the total U.S. power requirements by, say, twenty five years from now, that is: what percentage of our power needs could be expected by than. To answer Are you talking NCDC data? US mainland temperature might finally be hitting highs it hit in the 1930's but warming is measured by taking the global temperature anomaly - not a regional one. Otherwise one could just pick and choose areas that have experienced enormous regional cooling and warming to make arguments which aren't based on representative data. Global Temperature anomaly has been been rising and is significantly greater than 1934. With respect to what you're talking about in terms of temperature adjustments on what I'm guessing is NCDC data there are a number of really good scientifically peer reviewed reasons to make adjustments. In some cases temperature measuring stations have moved locations or changed the time of day they measure the temperature and that introduces a bias into the record - these are just a couple of the adjustments that I assume you are referring to and have been validated in a number of studies. These adjustments are not just in one direction - in the case of urban heat island effects temperatures have actually been adjusted down. If you're seriously interested in why adjustments are necessary and why they are a necessity to preserve the integrity of the data I'd read some of these (I've included a UHI paper too): www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdfwww1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-01R-27Jul12.pdfwww1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v3/techreports/Technical%20Report%20NCDC%20No12-02-3.2.0-29Aug12.pdfwww.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012JD018509.shtml
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jun 25, 2014 18:47:14 GMT -5
Thanks, Rusty.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2014 9:03:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by badgerhoya on Jul 7, 2014 14:02:18 GMT -5
"Despite all this evidence, I’m sure there will be claims by the usual suspects that Antarctic ice is actually increasing, not decreasing. However, this is misleading at best (and I'm being kind here). Why? There are two kinds of ice in Antarctica. One is sea ice, and the other land ice. Sea ice is just what freezes in the winter and melts in the summer; it varies with the seasons, and that amount fluctuates year by year as well, but over time is relatively constant. But that doesn’t affect the land ice. Antarctic land ice is decreasing by an astounding 100 billion tons per year. That’s what we’re talking about here. Sea ice in Antarctica isn’t important in the long run when it comes to climate change; land ice is. And we’re losing land ice at a stunning rate." www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/12/global_warming_antarctic_glacier_collapse_may_now_be_inevitable.htmlAnything else?
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 7, 2014 15:00:17 GMT -5
"Despite all this evidence, I’m sure there will be claims by the usual suspects that Antarctic ice is actually increasing, not decreasing. However, this is misleading at best (and I'm being kind here). Why? There are two kinds of ice in Antarctica. One is sea ice, and the other land ice. Sea ice is just what freezes in the winter and melts in the summer; it varies with the seasons, and that amount fluctuates year by year as well, but over time is relatively constant. But that doesn’t affect the land ice. Antarctic land ice is decreasing by an astounding 100 billion tons per year. That’s what we’re talking about here. Sea ice in Antarctica isn’t important in the long run when it comes to climate change; land ice is. And we’re losing land ice at a stunning rate." www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/12/global_warming_antarctic_glacier_collapse_may_now_be_inevitable.htmlAnything else? Seems to me believers feel free to ignore real data while theorizing to explain why the data do not support their climate change theory. Real science looks at real data and says "oops, maybe we need objectively to challenge our basic theory.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jul 7, 2014 16:02:01 GMT -5
I don't see how that address badgerhoya's point in any way shape or form.
Treating a control issue as a form of denial is ludicrous.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,428
|
Post by TC on Jul 7, 2014 16:39:07 GMT -5
Seems to me believers feel free to ignore real data while theorizing to explain why the data do not support their climate change theory. Real science looks at real data and says "oops, maybe we need objectively to challenge our basic theory. You've just explained the faults with your own post-anything-the-Drudge-Report-barfs-up-on-climate-change position very well.
|
|
Nevada Hoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 18,342
|
Post by Nevada Hoya on Jul 8, 2014 18:47:37 GMT -5
This conference should prove one way or another the real story about climate change. And in my backyard in Las Vegas. :- /http://www.reviewjournal.com/columns-blogs/john-l-smith/climate-change-rapped-conference
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 31, 2014 9:39:23 GMT -5
SyFy, of all channels, aired a very interesting and enlightening 4-hour documentary on the perils of global warming last night. I have to admit, I never thought about it the way they presented it. Highly recommended viewing for all. Here is a good segment summarizing the documentary.
|
|