White House: U.S. is cold because the planet is hot

Well guess what guys, here in europe, coastal France and England are being torn apart by costal storms and mass flooding, just like those darn sciency scientists said they would : because of the warming Gulf Stream. Not that personal experience should be used as any kind of data, but over on the other side of the pond, we are having the mildest winter that I have ever seen.

I find it unbelievably hypocritical how people trust scientists to keep them alive when they're sick, confortable, warm and fed in their homes, connected to multimedia and travel-capable thanks to vehicules. But when the community comes up with something that challenges a wealthy minorities consumption cycle/lifestyle, those same people piss all over said scientists findings, despite an overwhelming concessus that the phenomenon is real.

Also, the whole "global warming isn't true because it's snowing here in Alabama" just goes to show how self-centered and downright dumb some americans can be. Those among you who misguidingly believe that man can have no impact upon mother nature should go for a stroll at Fukushima. That would help out the rest of us, really it would.

No one is suggesting that we are going to destroy the planet. But we are making it increasingly difficult to survive on, not only for us, but for many other species who have adapted during many, many years, to a slow-changing climate.

If the subject truly interests you, read the studies. Be intellectually honest about it.
Don't stop at the handfull that validate your opinion. Try the mountains of others, which say you are morons who never even took the time to form an educated opinion, but prefered instead to pick and choose for their own petty comfort.

reply to post by Ismail


So...is man-made global warming a fact or a theory?

If the subject truly interests you, read the studies. Be intellectually honest about it.
Don't stop at the handfull that validate your opinion. Try the mountains of others, which say you are morons who never even took the time to form an educated opinion, but prefered instead to pick and choose for their own petty comfort.

I guess I would feel more comfy about the whole man-made global warming thing if all or a significant majority of the "sciency" guys would agree.

I would feel more comfy if they included solar activity and the weakening magnetosphere in their models (as well as such variables as vulcanism) and could actually take a period (such as, say: the 1940s) and plug in the data into their models and tada! there is the answer...there is how it was, all nice and verified with historical data.

That isn't the case is it?

I have no doubts that there is climate change going on. I also have no doubts that things are likely to get worse.

I have no doubt that the one thing that doesn't change about climate change is: change. There are a lot of climatologists who are much more knowledgable than myself who do not agree with the man-made part.

Given that there has been much data falsification on the side claiming man-made climate change how can anyone not question much of the claims, specially when you have low-lifes like Al Gore outright lying about it and has millions invested in promoting the agenda.

I am 59, and did you know that in the 70s the sciency guys told us that before now population growth would result in massive starvation on a global scale? (pst: didn't happen) Did you know that in the same time frame the sciency guys also told us we would have already run out fossil fuels? (pst: didn't happen either). I have grown weary of chicken littles with little verifiable proof making end of world claims.

Let's not even discuss politicians, Hollywood people, Musicians who encourage us to go green, reduce our carbon footprint and all that horseshist all the while they are flying around in their private jets. I have a special finger reserved for those a$$holes.

There is no doubt in my mind that momentous changes are in store for us. HOWEVER I remain unconvinced that we are the major players in this catastrophe. My understanding is that we could return to the horse and buggy era and still be experiencing the problems. 7 billion humans. Perhaps we need to kill off about 2/3s of them ... perhaps that would "save the earth". Oh...wait...that doesn't have any effect on solar activity or our weakening magnetosphere...each could and have had a much larger effect on climate than man could ever achieve, short of all out nuclear war.

The sky is falling!! Maybe so, but there isn't a thing I can do to stop it from falling.

reply to post by bbracken677


Bingo.

Climate change exists. The impact of humans, however, is something I highly doubt. There are too many factors at work in global climate. The climate has been changing since the world began. Life adapts.

Weather is unpredictable. Always been. The fact that scientists are using computer generated models, records from only about 100 years, and speculation to push the man made climate change is weak. Plus, not all scientists agree.

I guess I would feel more comfy about the whole man-made global warming thing if all or a significant majority of the "sciency" guys would agree.

reply to post by bbracken677


There is. A very significant majority. Anyone who tells you otherwise is liar with an agenda. Honest unbiased research would clear this up very fast.

I would feel more comfy if they included solar activity and the weakening magnetosphere in their models (as well as such variables as vulcanism) and could actually take a period (such as, say: the 1940s) and plug in the data into their models and tada! there is the answer...there is how it was, all nice and verified with historical data. That isn't the case is it?

Have you researched this ? Or are you just giving me your opinion of what you think goes into climate studies ?

There are a lot of climatologists who are much more knowledgable than myself who do not agree with the man-made part.

There are many, many more who do. Let's say you consult ten doctors. Two say you're fine, the rest say you have cancer. I don't believe for a second that you would not apply for treatment. Why is this different ?

Given that there has been much data falsification on the side claiming man-made climate change how can anyone not question much of the claims, specially when you have low-lifes like Al Gore outright lying about it and has millions invested in promoting the agenda.

Please consider that a distinction exists between scientists who actually know what they are talking about, and sensationalist twats out to make a quick buck. Al Gore is not a scientist, and much of the data he used was agenda orientated. If I told you tomorrow that gravity on earth is a force so strong that it crushes men daily, I would be being a sensationalist twat. That doesn't mean you wouldn't get smashed to a pulp if you fell a mile, or that gravity doesn't exist at all. Do not mix up the people who actually produce the studies, with those who deform reality to make money.

I am 59, and did you know that in the 70s the sciency guys told us that before now population growth would result in massive starvation on a global scale? (pst: didn't happen) Did you know that in the same time frame the sciency guys also told us we would have already run out fossil fuels?

Neither of those claims were largely supported by the scientific community. Again, you are mixing up scientists with people who make money from mediatizing, deforming and sensionalizing fringe studies. Unfortunately, even "respectable" entities like Nature Magazine are guilty of that.

Let's not even discuss politicians, Hollywood people, Musicians who encourage us to go green, reduce our carbon footprint and all that horseshist all the while they are flying around in their private jets. I have a special finger reserved for those a$$holes.

Agreed, so do I. Giving them the finger and pointing them out as the hypocritical douches they are doesn't make "going green" a bad thing, though, nor does it mean that a way of getting back at them is by being environmently irresponsable.

HOWEVER I remain unconvinced that we are the major players in this catastrophe.

Like most people, you probably don't ever go looking after anything that contradicts your own point of view. Of course you remain unconvinced. You have already made your mind up, and since it's up to you to go after contradictory information, you most likely won't.
But let's be honest for a second. Your response was full of opinions and "feelings". You evidently haven't done much research (enough biased research to confirm your intake, sure, but that's not "real" research), and I find that quite worrying. Because the figures are out there, and having access to the internet, you have access to them. We are potentially talking about the fate of our species, and you, like many others, have chosen half-a$$ed opinion-comforting over honest, open-minded exploration.

You're 59. That's nice. The people thanks to whom your life-expectancy exceeds the average eleventh century lifespan by 25 years already, thankfully decided, that the universe should be explored with an intellectually honest approach, even when their findings went against their "feelings". Seeing all the bonus time those people bought you, wouldn't it be considered a good deal just to give them a few hours back by checking things out the way they did/do ?

reply to post by Ismail


Hmmm.

I think there might be more money for the supporting "scientists" than the labeled "deniers".

There's *-Always-* more cash involved for the "solutions" to fabricated "alarms" and "emergencies".

Ismail
Well guess what guys, here in europe, coastal France and England are being torn apart by costal storms and mass flooding, just like those darn sciency scientists said they would : because of the warming Gulf Stream. Not that personal experience should be used as any kind of data, but over on the other side of the pond, we are having the mildest winter that I have ever seen.

I find it unbelievably hypocritical how people trust scientists to keep them alive when they're sick, confortable, warm and fed in their homes, connected to multimedia and travel-capable thanks to vehicules. But when the community comes up with something that challenges a wealthy minorities consumption cycle/lifestyle, those same people piss all over said scientists findings, despite an overwhelming concessus that the phenomenon is real.

Also, the whole "global warming isn't true because it's snowing here in Alabama" just goes to show how self-centered and downright dumb some americans can be. Those among you who misguidingly believe that man can have no impact upon mother nature should go for a stroll at Fukushima. That would help out the rest of us, really it would.

No one is suggesting that we are going to destroy the planet. But we are making it increasingly difficult to survive on, not only for us, but for many other species who have adapted during many, many years, to a slow-changing climate.

If the subject truly interests you, read the studies. Be intellectually honest about it.
Don't stop at the handfull that validate your opinion. Try the mountains of others, which say you are morons who never even took the time to form an educated opinion, but prefered instead to pick and choose for their own petty comfort.

edit on 15-2-2014 by Ismail because: he can't spell

I spent 40 years in science-based careers. One was medicine so I find it interesting that you assume we all follow mainstream medicine to save our lives. Actually, had I followed mainstream medicine I would be the subject of study at Dr. Bass' Body Farm. It is precisely because scientists can be wrong that I approach these reports with such skepticism.
Let me show you with an example. When I worked dispensing the products of Big Pharma, I was required to read countless pages of "documentation" for each new drug introduced and approved by government scientists. Each and every ream of paper showed quite clearly how safe the medication was for the human body. Docs would begin writing scripts for these new, "safe" medications. Patients would come in asking why they were experiencing this or that side effect of the drug. I could go to the official literature on the drug and find no mention of said side effect. However, many times when I looked at the actual chemistry and pharmacology of the drug, I could easily see where that particular side effect could/would occur. I had a choice; tell the patient that "according to the literature" you're a moron for saying that this new drug caused this new side effect because I have a pile of paper here that says nothing about the side effect you've described, or tell the patient the truth, that the new drug could indeed be the cause of his distress in my opinion.
At some point in the future, more reams of paper would follow the newly introduced drug. These were the justifications for having it pulled from the market. It might even come from the company who had just made billions on the drug but were now "voluntarily" removing it, having made a deal with the FDA about liability.
That's all to say that I know from experience that there are scientists who can be bought in the medical field. In my second career, I saw archaeologists who sold their services and delivered exactly the report (No site. Work can proceed) that some corporate or political body wished to receive. I got paid a lot of money to come along behind them and "salvage" the site when "work" proceeded and turned up some long-dead folks.
In the academic world, even our little local university's sciences department was taken over by corporate interests by the mid-'90s. More than once we've heard from students whose projects were suddenly discontinued when their results weren't going to reinforce the stance of the granting organization. If the study gets stopped, it never gets published. Effective in the short-term for Dow Chemical or ADM.
So you must forgive me if I don't automatically assume that the scientists studying the climate change issue are all on some sort of altruistic crusade. I study the evidence presented with my critical thinking skills turned on and look at funding sources.
I have the same skeptical attitude toward the True Believers in climate change that I have toward True Believers in mainstream medicine. I'm truly thankful for the meteorologists who can predict an ice storm or tornado heading my way so that I can be prepared. I'm truly thankful for people who practice emergency medicine for trauma and other emergencies. However, when it comes to actual health care, mainstream medicine has become "symptom suppression" via pills.
Have I read every climate change report ever published? No. Some don't deserve to be finished due to the glaring gaps in data being arbitrarily "modeled" when no such data even exists. But it is a subject I've kept studying since the predictions of an approaching ice age that began appearing while I was in college in the '70s. I remember reading in Science Digest that we should be preparing for the next Ice Age.
As for your assertion that nobody is saying we are destroying the planet????!!! I see that very statement on every thread concerning climate issues. You may not be saying that, but a goodly number of folks in the Chicken Little bunch are certainly saying that.
I'm in the camp that says that when we mistreat our Mother Earth badly enough, she'll shrug us off. I do my very best not to add to her discomfort and to be a careful steward of the resources she has provided. I encourage others to do likewise.

reply to post by Ismail


First off: I have a degree in Geology and am not the uninformed goof you seem to think I am.
Secondly: I did research this years ago. I formulated my opinions based on that research and what I have read and heard since then.
Third: you posited zero data to deny what I presented and yet you took me to task for not posting links.
Fourth: I believe you are confusing the number of climatologists who support climate change vs those who believe it is cause by man. I can google that and come up with numbers that support the man made aspect from 97% to 44% depending on what agenda is supporting the poll and how it is worded, no doubt.

Bottom line is this:

The fact of climate change is irrefutable. Given all the possible contributing factors, some of which I have no doubt we are not even aware of yet, can we establish beyond any doubt that man is responsible? Two words: Hell No. Anyone with half a brain should realize this is not a provable fact but a theory.

Being a former geologist I know that the only thing constant about climate change is change. Do we fully understand the control system the earth has and how it reacts given certain inputs into the system? Again, 2 words: Hell No...not even close.

Does the current climate model include the weakening magnetosphere? Hell no. Does it include solar activity? Perhaps I should let you look into that for yourself, since you are all so big on researching instead of formulating opinions without input.

What we do NOT know about climate is legion. To claim otherwise is just ridiculous crappola. That word is sciency for Hubris.

Regarding the oil predictions of the 70s, that we would have already exhausted the supply of oil by this time? Perhaps you should take your head out of your a$$ and stick to stuff you actually know something about. This was the general consensus of engineers and geologists during that period because they had not made some very huge discoveries at that time.

Regarding the mass starvation and population remark? Again, you fail. The media was not as it is today. Not saying that there was never an intent by the media and others to sensationalize 'end of world scenarios' that prediction was made given the state of food production, available statistics regarding population growth and then extrapolated ... What was not factored in were the technological advances that significantly improved food production.

Care to actually tear my argument apart with facts instead of opinion that isn't as experienced as my mustache?

xuenchen
reply to post by Ismail

 

Hmmm.

I think there might be more money for the supporting "scientists" than the labeled "deniers".

There's *-Always-* more cash involved for the "solutions" to fabricated "alarms" and "emergencies".

There are just as many studies paid for by big oil whose sole purpose is to debunk climate change because it might affect their profit margin. Anyone can skew data for purposes of profit. When the vast majority however seem to be on the side of climate change its tine to take a long hard look. Sure, 300 climate scientists say its bunk but there are thousands who say otherwise.

xuenchen
reply to post by Ismail

 

Hmmm.

I think there might be more money for the supporting "scientists" than the labeled "deniers".

There's *-Always-* more cash involved for the "solutions" to fabricated "alarms" and "emergencies".

Just the term "deniers" is false. I don't think I've ever heard anyone "deny" the fact that the climate change takes place. I'm pretty sure that at least 98% of the population believes that the Ice Ages happened. It's that very belief that makes us ask for evidence to back up assertions that only the activities of humans could be causing the changes we are observing.
Apparently it is out of fashion with the media and the social networks to be skeptical.
I find skepticism to be quite a valuable stance. I've avoided many a stampede by not following the herds.

reply to post by bbracken677


Oh...I forgot to include that estimates of the existing oil reserves as late as the 90s were off significantly (and perhaps estimates later than that, as I suspect) for the simple fact that there was little known about shale oil and there was zero knowledge about fracking. No way to factor in what you do not know...

Therefore, a little critical thinking exerted tells me that the claims for man-made climate change (the new catch phrase, since global warming was experiencing issues) are shots in the dark, so to speak. Want to stop man-made climate change? Then all 7 billion of us need to return to the horse and buggy era, assuming that Hubris hasn't reared it's head again and with this belief that we are single handedly screwing up the planet.

Consider the effect, not to mention 7 billion reactions to trashing technology, of a return to the horse and buggy era. Then mass starvation would be an actuality. I am rather sure there would be mass riots. Anything less than a return to horse and buggy will not have much of an affect on climate change. Particularly if hubris has, indeed, overstated man's effect on climate.

I vote we just all turn on our AC units and open doors and windows ... that would be about as effective as anything else we could do.

Oh, and do some research on Green initiatives and really see just how Green and how much energy is preserved. I mean really...if you drive an electric car (if you dont, wtf is wrong with you? lol) you do realize that getting electricity from a power plant that is not a nuclear plant actually increases your carbon footprint, the more so the farther away your power supplying plant is located.

First off, if not nuclear then the power is generated by the burning of fossil fuels and secondly then factor in power loss by transmission. Now how efficient is your sterling green electric car?

The irony , climate reports and explanations by the most deceiving persons/place in the world...

So if there is widespread global warming, I am going to freeze ?

So if I don't have a job and the economy is in the tank, I will have money?

right!

I think at this point, history and our children will sort this one out. We've failed.

Bbracken677 and diggindirt, maybe you should review this link.

Maybe this video too.

No one is paying these guys.

Does the current climate model include the weakening magnetosphere? Hell no. Does it include solar activity? Perhaps I should let you look into that for yourself, since you are all so big on researching instead of formulating opinions without input.

Plenty of links to studies which state the contrary in this article.

reply to post by Ismail


I see his point.


Even if mankind is responsible for some of it. Then all we are doing is speeding it up. Chances are when combined with other factors the change will still happened but on a slower scale.

And what’s the point of going completely green? Electric cars have at the moment a bigger carbon foot print. Wind power is a gimmick and until better production method are made solar power is far too expensive for alot of everyday folks. And you’re living in la la land if you think people are going back to pre-industrial revolution style of thinking. And you’re not going to get many taking up the vegan diet either! Id rather see the world burn than go vegan

BUT

We should be looking into weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Fusion has just made some huge strides, Thorium fission also looks promising and there’s been some breakthroughs on solar that could reduce costs and increase efficiency.

Also it does’ hurt to have good energy practice by turning of unused appliances, insulation and not buying gas guzzlers (My Audi is fast, cool looking and does 60mpg so you don’t have to get a gay Prius).

Will any of that help? Likley not. But its good practice.

reply to post by peter vlar

your on the mark there mate as it is so hot hear in oz right know . I read an article not to long ago that said as the temp is rising here in Australia there will be more droughts more coastal flooding and extremely high temps , whilst up in the northern hem its just going to get colder and colder . The last time this happened was when the sun was at its quiet stage in its own cycle and shortly after that Europe and other countries experienced a mini ice age that lasted about 10 years im not sure if was in the 1700 hundreds but it did happen . Who Knows r we experiencing this type of fate again.

bbracken677


I guess I would feel more comfy about the whole man-made global warming thing if all or a significant majority of the "sciency" guys would agree.

So out of more than 2000 peer reviewed publications published between November 2012 to December 2013 the number of scientists disputing anthrogenic global warming is exactly one.

blogs.scientificamerican.com...

That sounds to me like a significant amount of 'sciency' guys in agreement.

reply to post by cuckooold


But there not funded by big oil so they dont count!

Rember with extreme right wing americans, only agenda driven co operate research counts, universitys and independant agencys are just a bunch of corrupt libral commie progressives

Is all of this due to human interference though.......?
I have always been under the notion that there is still A LOT we do not know. I have a theory on our weather cycles.
I call it......."What goes around Comes around".
We all know that our seasons come from the earths rotation around the sun and the distance between as well as the axis of the earth.
WHAT IF......
These are not the only factors?
Could it be possible that as our solar system revolves around the center of our galaxy that this might, as well, have an effect on our cycles here on earth?
It would be a slower effect though.
As we get closer to the center the earth heats a little. As we move away we get colder.
When we are out as far from the center as we can go it gets a lot colder. Could this explain ice ages in the past and the millennia between them?
Quad

reply to post by xuenchen


Even if I was to believe in global warming ( which I don't) why would anyone that can think on there own believe anything that comes out of this agenda driven corrupt Whitehouse ??

There preaching to a choir of cult driven dolts...at least the ones that are still there.

There own democratic base doesn't want anything to do with the Whitehouse.

reply to post by Quadrivium


More than 2000 peer reviewed publications published in the last year support anthropogenic warming, and one doesn't.

Anthropogenic, look up the meaning, it should make things clearer.