Global Warming

[1qa 0]

That said, I'm pretty sure China releases WAY more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than anyone in the Western world, and we aren't going to convince them to change anytime soon.

 

China discharges more Carbon in absolute terms because they rely on coal as a primary source of energy; it's what they have.

 

But, on a per capita basis, Western industrialized nations are worse offenders.

 

Moreover, if you assign "Carbon Credits" to consumption... i am pretty sure most of the carbon emitted in China is for our material comfort.

 

I am pretty pessimistic that the we can reverse the pace of climate change, just slow it some to help some regions adapt. The poorest regions will be hit hardest, and I am sure we will have more regions of the world that are just politically unstable - think of more Somalias and Aghanistans... All hail the rise of city states, and the death of nation states.

[jessemoore97 1,281]

 

I am pretty pessimistic that the we can reverse the pace of climate change, just slow it some to help some regions adapt. The poorest regions will be hit hardest, and I am sure we will have more regions of the world that are just politically unstable - think of more Somalias and Aghanistans... All hail the rise of city states, and the death of nation states.

 

But are these types of instances you mention really becoming that way because of climate change? For instance the argument has been made that fresh water will be fought over in the years to come, due to a lack of adequate supplies in many areas of the world. Is more of that problem because of over population in the areas that are unfit to sustain the resources like food and water for such a large population.

 

I remember a George Carlin skit where he discussed starving people in Africa and his bottom line was basically "move out of the f*cking desert!"

 

I have no doubt that there is climate change, since the Earth is in a constant flux. Man has had to evolve, migrate, and adapt to the constant changes in weather and temperatures of the Earth. We've seen global warming and cooling before, certainly to greater extremes than scientists are predicting now. We aren't changing the Earth one bit that it won't correct/adapt in some way on its own with or without mankind's presence.

[1qa 0]

But are these types of instances you mention really becoming that way because of climate change? For instance the argument has been made that fresh water will be fought over in the years to come, due to a lack of adequate supplies in many areas of the world. Is more of that problem because of over population in the areas that are unfit to sustain the resources like food and water for such a large population.

 

IMO, climate change compounds the problem. There will be less arable land and different growing seasons than our recent history. Worse, the most affected areas have large populations (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Africa) ... people will be displaced, and they will seek refuge. I can't imagine Australia and Russia just opening their doors because they are good people. Canada might... they're patsies in that way.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/world/climate-change-vulnerability-index/index.html

 

http://www.cgdev.org/page/mapping-impacts-climate-change

[irishwavend 571]

Piratey, you're clearly not a scientist.

 

 

Global "Warming" is happening, and you can't pick on a data point to say the science is flimsy.

 

The planet's climate has been trending up since the industrial age hit in full force, and it is well correlated to CO2 levels in the atmosphere and oceans.

 

http://climate.nasa.gov/

 

Humans, as the most adaptable species, will survive... many others will not. Many parts of the planet will suffer from more FREQUENT and EXTREME weather events.

 

Follow the trends, not the data points... like stocks.

 

The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

 

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

 

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

 

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

 

And one last point about the sham is how far these people will go to prove a point, like the guy who was recently fired for fraud. You know, the guy who took the pictures of the poor polar bears drowning due to global warming? It turns out that his 2011 antics were knowingly grossly overstated, but he wanted to make a point without any basis in fact.

 

F'ing liberals... They whine like little bitches when they don't get their way, but when they're in power, you better watch out, because they're ten times dirtier and nastier than any conservative would be. maybe it's because the conservatives have a sense of morality and professionalism that the nasty little hippies don't. Liberals are like the little kid who keeps picking at the bigger kid until the bigger kid finally swats the sh*t out of him to teach him a lesson. It's coming... Just watch out if Republicans actually take the 12 seats in the Senate they're currently projected to steal. Can you say "Impeachment"?

 

Get some.

[ObieKnobbe 47]

The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

 

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

 

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

 

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

 

And one last point about the sham is how far these people will go to prove a point, like the guy who was recently fired for fraud. You know, the guy who took the pictures of the poor polar bears drowning due to global warming? It turns out that his 2011 antics were knowingly grossly overstated, but he wanted to make a point without any basis in fact.

 

F'ing liberals... They whine like little bitches when they don't get their way, but when they're in power, you better watch out, because they're ten times dirtier and nastier than any conservative would be. maybe it's because the conservatives have a sense of morality and professionalism that the nasty little hippies don't. Liberals are like the little kid who keeps picking at the bigger kid until the bigger kid finally swats the sh*t out of him to teach him a lesson. It's coming... Just watch out if Republicans actually take the 12 seats in the Senate they're currently projected to steal. Can you say "Impeachment"?

 

Get some.

 

That was an epic rant... I love rants and whole-heartedly agree with your opinion.

[1qa 0]

Scientists in it for fame? Please. Scientists are not generally celebrities, nor generally rich.

 

Show me the sunspot theory, and how that explains the trends.

 

It has nothing to do with politics.... or if it does, show me the money trails.

[ND3 0]

The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

 

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

 

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

 

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

 

And one last point about the sham is how far these people will go to prove a point, like the guy who was recently fired for fraud. You know, the guy who took the pictures of the poor polar bears drowning due to global warming? It turns out that his 2011 antics were knowingly grossly overstated, but he wanted to make a point without any basis in fact.

 

F'ing liberals... They whine like little bitches when they don't get their way, but when they're in power, you better watch out, because they're ten times dirtier and nastier than any conservative would be. maybe it's because the conservatives have a sense of morality and professionalism that the nasty little hippies don't. Liberals are like the little kid who keeps picking at the bigger kid until the bigger kid finally swats the sh*t out of him to teach him a lesson. It's coming... Just watch out if Republicans actually take the 12 seats in the Senate they're currently projected to steal. Can you say "Impeachment"?

 

Get some.

 

Wow, bud. You need a hand getting off that soap box?

[TDUB 0]

The University of Michigan is calling. They want you to come back.... You should read Freakonomics if you really want to be educated about correlations. Just because CO2 goes up doesn't mean the warming trend (if there is one) is related. Just because the Notre Dame wins a football game and it rains that night doesn't mean a Notre Dame win equals rain. You sound like a primitive when you speak like that. Are you going to worship a windmill one day?

 

This global warming sh*t is a scam from liberals who have all their money in green stocks. Or, from scientists who are more in it for the fame and money than the actual science. When you cite climate "science," you're citing lies and coverups, because every piece of data that calls the theory into question is thrown away. Don't point fingers at the newspapers as a red herring. That has no relevance to the fact that the accumulation of data that is being leaked out points to this whole thing being a sham.

 

Also, you're misleading everyone when you say the trend has been on the rise since the industrial revolution. In fact, there has been a push since then to stop global cooling. So, tell me how that trend works. Further, your data points are screwed up, because the monitoring stations are often sitting in the middle of a city where the temperature is naturally higher due to being in the concrete jungle, yet you don't see these "scientists" accounting for those differences.

 

In terms of climate change and global heating or cooling, you should look to the stars, because the biggest factor is likely sunspots. Also, don't forget that there was a study in the spring saying that the rise in CO2 is actually showing a trend that sunlight is being reflected and the CO2 is acting as a cooling agent.

 

And one last point about the sham is how far these people will go to prove a point, like the guy who was recently fired for fraud. You know, the guy who took the pictures of the poor polar bears drowning due to global warming? It turns out that his 2011 antics were knowingly grossly overstated, but he wanted to make a point without any basis in fact.

 

F'ing liberals... They whine like little bitches when they don't get their way, but when they're in power, you better watch out, because they're ten times dirtier and nastier than any conservative would be. maybe it's because the conservatives have a sense of morality and professionalism that the nasty little hippies don't. Liberals are like the little kid who keeps picking at the bigger kid until the bigger kid finally swats the sh*t out of him to teach him a lesson. It's coming... Just watch out if Republicans actually take the 12 seats in the Senate they're currently projected to steal. Can you say "Impeachment"?

 

Get some.

 

Internet. Tough guy.

[piratey 6]

Scientists in it for fame? Please. Scientists are not generally celebrities, nor generally rich.

 

Show me the sunspot theory, and how that explains the trends.

 

It has nothing to do with politics.... or if it does, show me the money trails.

 

lol

 

In a report earlier this year, the Brookings Institution put green stimulus spending at $51 billion. From 2009 to 2014, Brookings estimates the federal government will spend over $150 billion from both stimulus and non-stimulus funds on green initiatives.

 

Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.

http://climatequotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/cc-funding2011.pdf

 

The big winner in the climate change money train is the National Science Foundation — they are requesting $1.616 billion. They want $766 million for the Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability program, a 15.9% increase from their last budget. They also need another $370 million for the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an increase of 16%. They say they also need another $480 million for Atmospheric Sciences, an increase of 8.1%, and Earth Sciences, up 8.7%.

 

Oh, and $955 million for the Geosciences Directorate, an increase of 7.4%.

 

The second largest request for money in 2011 comes from the Department of Energy. They say they need $627 million for things like funding for renewable energy. The request represents a whopping 37% increase from last year! They want a 12% increase for energy efficiency programs. They want to eliminate $2.7 billion of subsidies for industries that emit large amounts of carbon dioxide.

 

Let’s get NASA in on the parade! For 2011, NASA wants $438 million to study climate change, an increase of 14%. NASA’s total Earth Sciences budget request is actually $1.8 billion. Some $809 million of that is for satellites, some of which are specifically put in orbit to study climate change. It is difficult to separate out which ones are for climate monitoring and which ones are not, so I won’t include this number in the overall climate change money train. But make no mistake: a significant percentage of the $809 million is exclusively for climate change satellites.

 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is looking for $437 million for climate research. This is an increase of 21.4% from the previous budget. This includes funds for regional and national assessments of climate change, including ocean acidification. Once again, another meaty bag of money to tap into for researchers, who have nice cars and big houses and need to keep up the payments.

 

The Department of the Interior (DOI) is also interested in robbing the climate change vault — they say they need $244 million in 2011. Of this total, $171 million is for the Climate Change Adaptation initiative. This program identifies areas and species that are most vulnerable to climate change, and implements coping strategies. Another $73 million is needed for the New Energy Frontier initiative. The goal of this program is to increase solar, wind, and geothermal energy capacity.

 

 

From 2003-2011 the gov't spent $122.8 billion on battling Climate Change.

 

Now, imagine climate change is not man made. What was that money spent on? Who's admitting to that waste?

 

And that's just SPENDING. We're not even talking about the taxes on our energy use to help curb it's use. The gas you use in your car? The energy cost to light and heat your house?

[1qa 0]

 

From 2003-2011 the gov't spent $122.8 billion on battling Climate Change.

 

Now, imagine climate change is not man made. What was that money spent on? Who's admitting to that waste?

 

And that's just SPENDING. We're not even talking about the taxes on our energy use to help curb it's use. The gas you use in your car? The energy cost to light and heat your house?

 

The ANNUAL US budget spending is 3.75 TRILLION ... Defense alone is $830B, and you're griping over $15B annual averagee on "battling" climate change... and claiming it is a money grab..

 

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart

 

Learn perspective.

 

How much do you think existing energy (oil) companies have spent battling the scientific concensus that global warming (or climate change) is man-made... within Congress, buying influence.

 

You really think that for those relative pittances that scientists are pushing an agenda ... to do what? profit whom? get some extra money for publishing a paper, setting up a weather buoy? In fact, nationally funded basic research has been decreasing, on average, over the past 15 years.

 

Still waiting for your sun spot theory to explain the global climate trends.

 

Honestly, I don't think it really matters what I write, or what sources I show, because you take it as faith that scientists are corrupt... and that there's a conspiracy to upend energy companies, or change your life... just because.... even though the money trail says the opposite.

 

BTW, your climate quotes link didn't work for me...

[ChickenSoup 0]

Honestly, I don't think it really matters what I write, or what sources I show, because you take it as faith that scientists are corrupt... and that there's a conspiracy to upend energy companies, or change your life... just because.... even though the money trail says the opposite.

 

Give it up dude... even if you're right.. WHO CARES!

 

We have best and baddest military in the WORLD. There are the strong, and there are the weak, and that is life. Who the F**K cares that some half-human in some backwater country is going lose the genome gain.

 

There are too many on the planet anyway, and they're getting in the way of my view.

 

Just crawl back into your snuggle hole and cry yourself to death. ... one less liberal pansy who wants $15/hr to distract me from ND Football.

[jessemoore97 1,281]

Scientists in it for fame? Please. Scientists are not generally celebrities, nor generally rich.

 

Show me the sunspot theory, and how that explains the trends.

 

It has nothing to do with politics.... or if it does, show me the money trails.

 

Here's some things:

 

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml

 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/07/news-flash-cerns-orders-blackout-of-cosmic-ray-project-news.html

 

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v102/i11/e118501

 

There are lots of websites that discuss the possible links between sunspots or cosmic radiation and effects on the atmosphere.

[jessemoore97 1,281]

\

 

Honestly, I don't think it really matters what I write, or what sources I show, because you take it as faith that scientists are corrupt... and that there's a conspiracy to upend energy companies, or change your life... just because.... even though the money trail says the opposite.

 

BTW, your climate quotes link didn't work for me...

 

I don't think all scientists are corrupt. However people are flawed and imperfect, therefore I will not take anything as gospel, especially when evidence and admittance of altering research data emerges. Could that be happening on the other side as well with the "oil profiteers" version of climate science. Absolutely!

 

This is why common sense and not accepting everything people, especially the politically motivated media, tells us. Climate change is big business whether the funding comes from the government or private entities, you don't get to work unless you secure funding. You may not get rich but its an income.

 

Climate science is an extra ordinarily politicized debate, in which a scientist has to tread very cautiously into if they challenge anything about the popular hypothesis that man is responsible for all climate change. How can you secure funding for your research when you are trying to challenge the accepted norm? Equipment and help is expensive. Even if you do get funding, say in the form of the "oil profiteers", a majority will simply dismiss your work as biased given your funding source.

[piratey 6]

The ANNUAL US budget spending is 3.75 TRILLION ... Defense alone is $830B, and you're griping over $15B annual averagee on "battling" climate change... and claiming it is a money grab..

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart

 

Learn perspective.

 

How much do you think existing energy (oil) companies have spent battling the scientific concensus that global warming (or climate change) is man-made... within Congress, buying influence.

 

You really think that for those relative pittances that scientists are pushing an agenda ... to do what? profit whom? get some extra money for publishing a paper, setting up a weather buoy? In fact, nationally funded basic research has been decreasing, on average, over the past 15 years.

 

Still waiting for your sun spot theory to explain the global climate trends.

 

Honestly, I don't think it really matters what I write, or what sources I show, because you take it as faith that scientists are corrupt... and that there's a conspiracy to upend energy companies, or change your life... just because.... even though the money trail says the opposite.

 

BTW, your climate quotes link didn't work for me...

 

Oh okay, so just because it's less than one area of spending, it means it's not a cash grab. 15 billion is just a drop in the bucket right? No big deal.

[ND3 0]

Give it up dude... even if you're right.. WHO CARES!

 

We have best and baddest military in the WORLD. There are the strong, and there are the weak, and that is life. Who the F**K cares that some half-human in some backwater country is going lose the genome gain.

 

There are too many on the planet anyway, and they're getting in the way of my view.

 

Just crawl back into your snuggle hole and cry yourself to death. ... one less liberal pansy who wants $15/hr to distract me from ND Football.

 

Sounds like you're the one with the entitlement complex.

[nickman54 0]

Give it up dude... even if you're right.. WHO CARES!

 

We have best and baddest military in the WORLD. There are the strong, and there are the weak, and that is life. Who the F**K cares that some half-human in some backwater country is going lose the genome gain.

 

There are too many on the planet anyway, and they're getting in the way of my view.

 

Just crawl back into your snuggle hole and cry yourself to death. ... one less liberal pansy who wants $15/hr to distract me from ND Football.

 

:rofl:

 

This is very entertaining, thanks.

[piratey 6]

Do you know how much money it would have cost the US if we had signed the Kyoto Protocol? Economic data from The Department of Energy predict that U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) would shrink $397 billion by 2010 The regulatory and tax costs of complying could be as high as $338 billion (1992 dollars) annually from 2008 to 2012.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2473633/Global-warming-costs-world-billion-dollars-DAY--DOUBLE-needed-combat-climate-change-claims-report.html

 

The International Energy Agency (IEA) claims that $5 trillion is required by 2020 for clean energy projects alone

 

 

 

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/news_blog_post.aspx?id=295986#.UqIXR9JDv10

 

Karl Bohnak, chief meteorologist at WLUC-TV on Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, who calls global warming alarmism his “pet peeve” and finally got so fed up with it that he wrote to his congressman, Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak. He shared his letter in a blog post on his station’s Web site:

 

For years as a broadcast meteorologist, I kept silent about the issue of “global warming.” Declaring skepticism labeled you (and still does) as an anti-environmentalist. After former VP Gore’s movie hit the big screen, I could remain silent no more. “An Inconvenient Truth” was filled with so many gross distortions and outright scientific misrepresentations; I felt it was my obligation to speak out….

 

CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s not a problem. The problem is rent-seeking corporations looking to cash in on cap and trade and low-output, high-cost alternative energy. As your Michigan House colleague Congressman Dingell says “cap and trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one.” This is not the time to raise energy prices, which is what this bill will surely do. I believe the majority of your constituents will suffer adversely if this legislation is passed.

[corysold 0]

Ignore the first snow in Cairo in 112 years and the increasing Antarctic ice caps.

[piratey 6]

Ignore the first snow in Cairo in 112 years and the increasing Antarctic ice caps.

 

http://i.imgur.com/yMqg2gl.jpg

 

Also rare snow in Jerusalem, heaviest in 50 years

http://www.thejc.com/files/imagecache/simchach_galleria/images/Jerusalem+snow+F130110UL001.jpg

 

Some mucky mucks on my image aggregator site I frequent(imgur) made the brilliant comment that "Global warming actually causes it to snow more, it causes extreme weather" Which immediately prompted a face palm from me.

Edited December 13, 2013 by piratey

[piratey 6]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/13/over-2000-cold-and-snow-records-set-in-the-usa-this-past-week/