Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
When did they begin recording temperatures in Greenland? Back when they were growing grapes?A single day high based on 50 years of data? That’s proof of global warming?
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Oh gee! We’re back to the old high school debate. “My card is better than your card”. Not being an environmentalist groupie with “people” to call for citations, here are some “quote cards” even so.
Greenland ice is increasing, not decreasing. sites.google.com/site/globalwarmingquestions/ar4green
Besides, Greenland was, during the Medieval Warming Period, much warmer than it is now. That’s why the Vikings called it “Green-land”. Nobody with a mind would call it that now. The Vikings left or died out there because when it got cold in the Little Ice Age, they couldn’t raise grain there anymore. People still can’t.
Russian scientists are worried about cooling, not warming. (And there are dozens of these, but here’s one) wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/russian-scientists-say-period-of-global-cooling-ahead-due-to-changes-in-the-sun/
notrickszone.com/2013/04/05/russian-scientist-warns-global-temperatures-to-fall-1-5c-by-2050-and-global-cooling-refuges/
Release of Arctic methane is a bogus bogeyman. Sea floor methane hydrates are found largely along shorelines, from the tropics to the arctic, with much more of it in the tropical and temperate zones than in the arctic. “Warming the arctic” to equal the temperatures of the oceans at the equator, will take a long, long time, and still won’t predictably release methane because methane hydrate composition is more a matter of pressure than temperature.
Besides, during the Medieval Warming Period, the Arctic Ocean was open water. It Isn’t now.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Nope. Nor when they were growing in Newfoundland either. They could just grow them.
Can’t now, though. Too cold.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Russian scientists are warning of severe global cooling right now. They’re not buying MMGW at all. Google it. You’ll see that I’m right.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Well, I’m just going to go bake my cake in my brand-new solar oven, that only cost me $10,000.00 (after tax credits), but I’ll recapture that within just 5 years of baking, if you include warming up leftovers.Nope. Nor when they were growing in Newfoundland either. They could just grow them.
I gave my old oven to a poor family. Too bad they’ll be punished for using fossil fuels and perhaps not be able to buy food to cook in it. But I don’t understand why they just don’t buy a solar oven. The government is subsidizing them to make them more affordable.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Shhhhhhhh! There is always this pause before Lynnvinc comes up with more “quote cards”; possibly from that environmentalist organization she seems to be affiliated with. Watch. tick tock, tick tock.I don’t know why you bother. None of your posts are addressed, just more link slinging on “projections,” “models,” and “historical data.” All of which you already addressed.
For the benefit of us lurkers, I’m glad you are, though.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
google “russian scientist global cooling”. Enough to scare you into carrying your coat with you at all times, with hot bricks in the pockets.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Did you ever watch the Twighlight Zone? There was an episode where everybody was sweating to death. Then the girl wakes up and it’s really freezing.google “russian scientist global cooling”. Enough to scare you into carrying your coat with you at all times, with hot bricks in the pockets.
doo doo doo doo
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Didn’t see that one, but I understand the point.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
One of the bad things subsidies do is give people a sense of investment in something. It’s like Harris’ “Tar Baby”. Hit it, and it doesn’t let go of you.
Two of my own brothers took the government up on “Cash for Clunkers”, a middle class subsidy all the way. And both of them are political conservatives. But while you can criticize all kinds of other subsidies to them, you can’t criticize “Cash for Clunkers” to them because they are now invested in it and have to defend it. That’s one insidious thing about government largesse. It buys you, if only to the extent of the particular thing for which you “took the king’s shilling”. I don’t think people realize, by and large, how corrupting that can be; how it can sap your otherwise critical judgment.
But the politicians sure realize it. And that’s one of the ways they can subvert the otherwise good judgment of the voting public. It’s as old as “bread and circuses”, and undoubtedly older than that. You would think people would learn, but they don’t.
That, in my mind, is why the Popes have, in the Papal Encyclicals, warned against too great reliance on the business world or the government world. It’s why “ownership of productive, inheritable assets” is extolled by the Popes. To the extent we keep ourselves independent from the “tar babies” of this world, the less we are likely to be corrupted into accepting their views instead of the views of the Church and Jesus Christ who established it.
E
estesbob
Guest
Coal doesn’t receive subsidies.
E
estesbob
Guest
The best thing about cash for clunkers is how many Obama-Biden bumper stickers it took off the road
L
lynnvinc
Guest
Maybe they have grandchildren they are actually concerned about…bec as we ALL know, fossil-fuel-funded denialist industry fake-science spin aside, AGW is happening and is and will have very harms effects, but some of us just don’t want to take responsibility for it. It’s what you call fallen human nature.
D
Darryl1958
Guest
The time when people were actually passionate in their fears of global catastrophe due to climate change reached its climax a few years ago. Obama can make speeches till he turns blue, but he is merely following yesterday’s news— a day late and a dollar short.
Globally, nobody is paying him no mind.
Ironically, his complete and utter failure on the economic front is the greatest source of American success at reducing their carbon footprint to an extent that Europe has never been able to.
When it comes to being successful fighting carbon emission, nothing succeeds like economic failure. It is Gore versus the poor, and when the leftist vision of Obama succeeds, the poor are the greatest victims.
That is inhumane.
Globally, nobody is paying him no mind.
Ironically, his complete and utter failure on the economic front is the greatest source of American success at reducing their carbon footprint to an extent that Europe has never been able to.
When it comes to being successful fighting carbon emission, nothing succeeds like economic failure. It is Gore versus the poor, and when the leftist vision of Obama succeeds, the poor are the greatest victims.
That is inhumane.
L
lynnvinc
Guest
I am on my knees, tears in my eyes to appeal to all of you to please do what you can to reduce your personal and household GHGs at least in ways that don’t cost or save you money immediates, short-run or long-run, whatever is feasible and economically sensible.
You do not have to like any plans. You can hate me if you want. But please do this, not for me, but just in case, outside chance those wicked climate scientists might just by fluke be correct. Please do it for the children, for the future, for the poor of the earth. I’m not asking you to give charity, just do whatever is sensible economically that also helps reduce GHGs. If people could at the least do that, that would be very wonderful.
You don’t even have to tell me. Let me go to my grave thinking I’m a total failure. Just please consider it.
You do not have to like any plans. You can hate me if you want. But please do this, not for me, but just in case, outside chance those wicked climate scientists might just by fluke be correct. Please do it for the children, for the future, for the poor of the earth. I’m not asking you to give charity, just do whatever is sensible economically that also helps reduce GHGs. If people could at the least do that, that would be very wonderful.
You don’t even have to tell me. Let me go to my grave thinking I’m a total failure. Just please consider it.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Nobody hates you. We dislike the propaganda you are falling for.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
There are studies, models, predictions. And then there is reality,
climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-this-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/
If there is global cooling, then efficiency will be even more important than a global warming scenario. A lot more requirements for heating, shorter growing seasons, reduced regions suitable for growing, transportation to get food to regions having become unsuitable for growing…
climatedepot.com/2013/08/03/unprecedented-july-cold-arctic-sees-shortest-summer-on-record-normally-the-high-arctic-has-about-90-days-above-freezing-this-year-there-was-less-than-half-that/
If there is global cooling, then efficiency will be even more important than a global warming scenario. A lot more requirements for heating, shorter growing seasons, reduced regions suitable for growing, transportation to get food to regions having become unsuitable for growing…
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Interesting quote from Walter Russell Meade
blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/02/climate-caution-is-about-the-policies-not-the-science/
"Global greens develop stupid, horrible, expensive, counterproductive climate policy agendas, and then try to use the imprimatur of “science” as a way to panic the world into adopting them. All too often, in other words, they fall prey to the temptation to make what the science says “clearer than truth” in Acheson’s phrase, in order to silence debate on their cockamamie policy fixes. A favorite tactic is to brand any dissent from the agenda as “anti-science.” It is not only a dishonest tactic; it’s a counterproductive one, generating new waves of skepticism with every exaggeration of fact.
We need a deep rethinking on the policy front. The problems of climate science need to be disaggregated. How do we help China and India move from coal to less carbon-intensive forms of energy use. How do we accelerate the US shift from coal to cleaner natural gas? How can we accelerate the shift from an industrial economy to an information economy in ways that allow the economy to grow and living standards to rise without making the environment worse off.
Environmental policy thinkers almost always begin with statist, top-down fixes, and quickly embrace crony capitalist ideas that involve subsidies for certain types of energy production, such as the ethanol abomination. Powerful economic lobbies then run with these ideas, perverting them until their environmental benefits take a back seat to their usefulness as tools of wealth capture.
This leaves environmentalists increasingly frustrated, increasingly panicked, and with increasingly little to show for it."
Well those environmentalists actually interested in the environment vice just getting rich off the subsidies for failed efforts. The harder the AGW thing is pushed, contrary to the evidence, the more the whole environmental movement loses credibility. And the harder it becomes to get things done based on the very real and provable concerns of long term conservation, pollution, etc. Once again, the government (at least US) efforts simply result in cronies getting rich, not much else.
blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/08/02/climate-caution-is-about-the-policies-not-the-science/
"Global greens develop stupid, horrible, expensive, counterproductive climate policy agendas, and then try to use the imprimatur of “science” as a way to panic the world into adopting them. All too often, in other words, they fall prey to the temptation to make what the science says “clearer than truth” in Acheson’s phrase, in order to silence debate on their cockamamie policy fixes. A favorite tactic is to brand any dissent from the agenda as “anti-science.” It is not only a dishonest tactic; it’s a counterproductive one, generating new waves of skepticism with every exaggeration of fact.
We need a deep rethinking on the policy front. The problems of climate science need to be disaggregated. How do we help China and India move from coal to less carbon-intensive forms of energy use. How do we accelerate the US shift from coal to cleaner natural gas? How can we accelerate the shift from an industrial economy to an information economy in ways that allow the economy to grow and living standards to rise without making the environment worse off.
Environmental policy thinkers almost always begin with statist, top-down fixes, and quickly embrace crony capitalist ideas that involve subsidies for certain types of energy production, such as the ethanol abomination. Powerful economic lobbies then run with these ideas, perverting them until their environmental benefits take a back seat to their usefulness as tools of wealth capture.
This leaves environmentalists increasingly frustrated, increasingly panicked, and with increasingly little to show for it."
Well those environmentalists actually interested in the environment vice just getting rich off the subsidies for failed efforts. The harder the AGW thing is pushed, contrary to the evidence, the more the whole environmental movement loses credibility. And the harder it becomes to get things done based on the very real and provable concerns of long term conservation, pollution, etc. Once again, the government (at least US) efforts simply result in cronies getting rich, not much else.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
This is my concern too. Too emotionalism involved.
- Status