This Is What Happens When You Elect Climate Change Deniers

a reply to: peter vlar

The problem with the proxy data is the interpretation .Even Micheal Mann couldn't explain why the tree ring data decided to say something different after a certain point and so he stitched other proxy data to compensate for it .Problem was that the new proxy had it's own issues that didn't make it suitable but it did fit the hockey stick graft that shock the scientific community .

The ice core samples as a proxy also has some issues of the co2 being underrepresented in the samples as Pro. Salby demonstrates .

a reply to: Krazysh0t

They were challenged while they were alive by other scientist of the day .The problem was getting into the club and if they didn't want to let you in and consider you a peer the SOL .Main stream science still suffers the same ills today .What is part of main stream today was fringe in the past when the main stream of the day was being challenged and ignored only to emerge later on as part of the body of excepted facts .

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Of course there were scientists in the past that were wrong and didn't realize it

Ohhh ... but they were ever the figure of scientific authority right up to their moment of shaming ... and then another stepped up to take his place as the latter fell back into the warm embrace of the pack.

Sorry. Had to.

Science works by building on the failures of the past. It acknowledges them, discards them, then moves on to a new idea. Science gets more precise all the time as it further refines itself. The longer a theory stays a theory and refuses to be overturned, the more evidence that will need to be produced to overturn it. This is because scientists who try to disprove it, end up further proving it and adding more evidence to the mounting pool that says it is true.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

That's because the scientific method is VERY precise. If you can't demonstrate applicable knowledge of how to use it, then you are laughed at and ridiculed. That doesn't mean that a self-taught amateur can't get anywhere. They just have to be real careful about how they present their findings.

Another thing to consider. Science isn't immediate. There are scientific ideas that have been discovered and have taken centuries to be adopted as standard thought. Humans are humans and prone to mistakes. The point of science is to try to overcome those mistakes a little at a time.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Disclaimer: I am Not a climate scientist.



Can you see that graph (sorry if you've gotta squint)? Anything look outside the norm? We're doing fine. Pretty soon, we're gonna get pretty derned cold. I don't like cold. I know you were a Soldier ... and Soldiers all know about cold.

There's no way humans can have enough impact on the climate to keep the Earth from dropping way back into the blue zone. Oh yeah ... Al sucks.

a reply to: buster2010

Can you show me where it states this? www.nasa.gov...


What does NASA stand for again?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Since when does government need the approval of citizens in order to stop corporations from polluting? They never did that before.

(Hint) They are doing it now because they want to raise taxes under the guise, and do nothing to actually stop the polluters.

So even if it is all real, it doesn't appear our government wants to do anything about it. Looking at the example they already set, it looks like they just want more money to buy more toys and play bigger government. ((Al Gore puts out more methane than 100,000 cows- not likely he actually cares about climate change).

Perhaps if the problem was being represented by people of integrity, and not a huge crew lying un american toilets like the Obama administration and the rest of the bums trying to make everyone besides them feel guilty and cave in to anything they say, then we could pursue the problem with confidence.

Confidence in government is the LAST thing that those clamoring about climate change are going to inspire in anybody.

a reply to: macman

while its a bit of a stretch to say that Earth Science has been a part of the written mission statement for decades, NASA has in fact had a very lengthy history of incorporating Earth Science studies into its programs. Since its inception in 1958 to be precise.

NASA conducts its work in four principal organizations, called mission directorates:
•Aeronautics: manages research focused on meeting global demand for air mobility in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable, while also embracing revolutionary technology from outside aviation.
•Human Exploration and Operations: focuses on International Space Station operations, development of commercial spaceflight capabilities and human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.
•Science: explores the Earth, solar system and universe beyond; charts the best route of discovery; and reaps the benefits of Earth and space exploration for society.
•Space Technology: rapidly develops, innovates, demonstrates, and infuses revolutionary, high-payoff technologies that enable NASA's future missions while providing economic benefit to the nation

One can't very well explore the possibility of sending humans to other celestial bodies if you can't correlate the potential detrimental effects with our own planet and how IT affects humans.

www.popularmechanics.com...

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: peter vlar

And where does Man Made Global Warming come into play, when exploring space and sending people the Mars?

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Since when does government need the approval of citizens in order to stop corporations from polluting? They never did that before.

(Hint) They are doing it now because they want to raise taxes under the guise, and do nothing to actually stop the polluters.

So even if it is all real, it doesn't appear our government wants to do anything about it. Looking at the example they already set, it looks like they just want more money to buy more toys and play bigger government. ((Al Gore puts out more methane than 100,000 cows- not likely he actually cares about climate change).

Determining if it is real or not is irrelevant to how seriously the government takes. I agree. I don't like government's answer to it and feel like there are better solutions than just arbitrarily raising taxes.

Perhaps if the problem was being represented by people of integrity, and not a huge crew lying un american toilets like the Obama administration and the rest of the bums trying to make everyone besides them feel guilty and cave in to anything they say, then we could pursue the problem with confidence.

It IS being represented by people with integrity. We call them scientists.

a reply to: Snarl

Climate isn't something that changes drastically over a few years. It takes hundreds of years for it to change. The only significant thing we are going to see is like 1 degree difference, if that, year to year.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

So you are saying that we should continue burning coal because it fuels society and there is NO other way to do things? You do know that hemp oil can be burned for energy right?

@krazyshot (I remember to directly reference you so there is no confusion),

At the current state of being, our entire infrastructure is based on coal, whether we like it or not.

If hemp can be used for energy, then ok. I am opposed to marijuana for the purpose of recreational usage, but if hemp works for other useful purposes, then why not?

I am aware that hemp can be made into clothing and paper, and if that would reduce the reliance on tearing down more and more trees, then I can agree to that. Did you think I would be opposed to that?

But even then, if we did use hemp for manufacturing things, how much would the government tax that and fund more research into why they need to find something wrong with it, so they get more money?

But right now, coal keeps the lights on. It also keeps the economy going by providing jobs in every sector of society. Steel is used to make farm implements and tractors to grow our food, steel is required to make diesel trucks to carry on our carbon and steel asphalt roads the very food we need.

Buildings are made of steel.

How much hemp then should be grown in order to accommodate our infrastructure?

a reply to: macman

NASA is in the unique position to monitor, via more than a dozen satellites, to monitor the entire Earth as well as the Sun thereby taking a multitude of measurements on a global scale. They also can monitor changes on other planets to see if there is a correlation with variations in the Sun and its effects on the Solar System as a whole as opposed to most reports we see which are American-centric or Euro-centric for example. I've seen in this thread mentions of increased average temperatures across the US while people who live on the East coast saw a more brutal winter than we've seen in several years now and using the east coast winter conditions to talk away and dismiss any relevance to global warming/climate change. NASA is able to give a more comprehensive view of entire systems from the tops of mountains, to the bottom of the Marianas Trench to Maxwell Montes on Venus.

For further reference-
climate.nasa.gov...

climate.nasa.gov...

climate.nasa.gov...

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: WarminIndy

So you are saying that we should continue burning coal because it fuels society and there is NO other way to do things? You do know that hemp oil can be burned for energy right?

@krazyshot (I remember to directly reference you so there is no confusion),

At the current state of being, our entire infrastructure is based on coal, whether we like it or not.

But of course. I'm not trying to suggest that we just stop using coal altogether. We have to phase it out over time.

If hemp can be used for energy, then ok. I am opposed to marijuana for the purpose of recreational usage, but if hemp works for other useful purposes, then why not?

I am aware that hemp can be made into clothing and paper, and if that would reduce the reliance on tearing down more and more trees, then I can agree to that. Did you think I would be opposed to that?

You asked me for an alternative to coal and I provided one. I don't make assumptions about people's beliefs though. This isn't necessarily directed at you, but I wish more people would do that with the things I say.

But even then, if we did use hemp for manufacturing things, how much would the government tax that and fund more research into why they need to find something wrong with it, so they get more money?

All research into hemp and marijuana is producing positive benefits. The only thing the government would want to do is fund research into the plant. If that research produces something that is wrong with it, then we need to think of a new solution later down the line. Right now though, we are working with borrowed time.

But right now, coal keeps the lights on. It also keeps the economy going by providing jobs in every sector of society. Steel is used to make farm implements and tractors to grow our food, steel is required to make diesel trucks to carry on our carbon and steel asphalt roads the very food we need.

The Hemp Conspiracy: Facts vs. Myth

Henry Ford’s first Model-T was built to run on hemp gasoline and was constructed from hemp. The car that was ‘grown from the soil,’ had hemp plastic panels whose impact strength was 10 times stronger than steel. Source Popular Mechanics, 1941.

Industrial Hemp: Plastic

Hemp plastic, like all durable hemp products and other plant-based building materials, also 'locks in' carbon. Hemp crops absorb CO2 as they grow, retaining the carbon (the basic element of all plants and animals) and releasing the oxygen. The harvested hemp is essentially made from carbon absorbed from the atmosphere and when hemp is used to make materials that last for a long time, this carbon is prevented from reentering the atmosphere as CO2. This ability helps combat global warming, whereas the production of petrochemical plastics creates large CO2 emissions and toxic by-products.

Buildings are made of steel.

How much hemp then should be grown in order to accommodate our infrastructure?

Surprisingly not as much as you'd think. Small plots of hemp can produce HUGE yields because the plant gets so tall.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I would presume that if the plants can yield that much to be able to provide the necessary photosynthesis to convert CO2 to Oxygen, then perhaps growing it just for that purpose might work.

Unfortunately if it can be grown it can be taxed. New regulations will be put into place.

Like I said, I have no problem if it can be used for good purposes.

ETA: I think we are on the same page regarding the beneficial usage of hemp. We aren't on the same page regarding marijuana. I have agreed with you on one particular thing, it's a red letter day.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Need to legalize it first... Climate Change deniers are just one of the groups that opposes marijuana legalization. Mostly because the oil companies also oppose it.

Edit: It's nice that we agree, but you really should change your stance on recreational marijuana. Especially if you are a supporter of smaller government, but that's a topic for one of my many marijuana threads. Maybe my next one with focus more on hemp than smoking it.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy no one denies the climate is constantly changing,but they do dispute the definition of it. ALso since when are scientist beyond reproach? they are just as corruptuble as poloticians and police officers.

German scientist in WW2 were saints with that line of thinking. They certainly were not ethical.

originally posted by: yuppa
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Krazy no one denies the climate is constantly changing,but they do dispute the definition of it. ALso since when are scientist beyond reproach? they are just as corruptuble as poloticians and police officers.

Who said that scientists were beyond reproach? Scientists WELCOME skepticism. But only if you have some good evidence to back your skepticism up, and you also have to be willing to admit when you are wrong when the evidence doesn't turn out how you like. What I am talking about is denialism, not skepticism. Denialists don't even make an attempt to understand the science before they dismiss it.

Scientists CAN be corrupted, but to assume that the ENTIRE profession of science is corrupted is just lunacy.

German scientist in WW2 were saints with that line of thinking. They certainly were not ethical.

This is a different argument. You claimed that scientists can be corrupted and produce bad data (ie disregarding the scientific method to push flimsy science for a buck). A scientist being unethical in his pursuit of answers doesn't mean he is going to corrupt the scientific method to do so though. Poor comparison here.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Money corrupts scientist absolutely. They crave funding and will do anything for it. Nothing you can say to me will disprove my opinion on them since seeing the data the climate models are based on faulty data. Our whole government is corrupt and that includes our scientist. As well as ALL OTHER SCIENTIST WORLDWIDE who get funding from TPTB/Foreighn governments.

Scientist used to be in consensus the world was flat too at one time.

a reply to: yuppa

See this is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It is so outside of reality that it isn't even funny. 97% of the WORLD'S scientists agree that climate change is real. The money going to US scientists is irrelevant, because almost ALL scientists agree with the theory, not just the US ones.

Then you say that nothing I say can change your mind (admission of a closed mind btw) because you've already determined that the data is flimsy. How exactly have you determined the data is flimsy? Because you connected the dots with your ridiculous premise that all US scientists are corrupt? Have you even LOOKED at the data? Of course you haven't. You haven't even proven the premise that all US scientists are corrupt.

It's conversations like this that hold us back as a country... I just got done highlighting a possible solution to this problem that doesn't involve "carbon credits" (what all climate deniers automatically assume people from my camp support) and here we are backtracking to discuss the merits of the science again... This holding back of the discussion of solutions is getting tiring... The longer we waste on it, the more screwed up our planet gets.