Realcent.org

This topic has come up lately, and I know there are different opinions about it, so... poll.

I really don't know, supposedly there is a strong scientific consensus, but I haven't really noticed it, and I have no way of telling who's lying and who isn't.

It is a money making scam and that's all. Trends are established over thousands of years, not 20 years

For what it's worth, Mars has been seeing the same sort of climate changes as Earth.

Have we done some stuff that could warm up the planet? The answer is yes...but it's often been said that all of our energy could come from capturing less than 3% of the sunlight reaching Earth. If you turn that around backwards, shouldn't it mean that changes in the output of the sun would have 33x more impact than changes in human energy usage?

Temperatures on Mars have increased the last 30 years. Is there anything that the earth and mars have in common? This is all about control of your energy. If you control energy, education, financial, food and healthcare then control every aspect of a society. Only thing left is to take away the guns.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Tourney64 wrote:Temperatures on Mars have increased the last 30 years. Is there anything that the earth and mars have in common?

We did send a couple rovers there...

Those vehicle increased emissions and caused the warming. I guess man is involved in the warming of both planets.

I was once a diehard believer. Then I studied the topic in depth over several years. The raw data simply doesnt support the claims unless you chop it up just right and look from just the right angle. We do not have the mandatory hot spot in the upper atmosphere. We have satellite data that suggests we simply ar enot retaining the claimed level of heat. Then of course there is the fact the warming has stalled for well over a decade now. At the decade point we were told if the stall in the temp rise went to 15 years there was a problem with the theory. We are just past that point now.

The debate is starting to change in scientific circles as well, and this will only continue as reality continues to not follow the models. you realize we are UNDER the temps the IPCC claimed was our BEST CASE scenario if we cut co2 outputs drastically? Well we made no cuts and actually put out slightly more then they projected at the time for the worst case scenario, yet we have temps lower then the best case. Doesnt that tell us by itself that in the least the theory is very flawed?

I might also note if you look at the last IPCC report they claim we have high levels of understanding and consensus on co2 as a climate driver, but for almost all other major factors they admit our knowledge of them is LOW and consensus low. Weight the sun as many astrophysicists do for instance and the sun accounted for most of the warming of past decades. (and is likely about to take us much cooler by the way) The IPCC and AGW promoters will focus on works that look only at one aspect of the suns influence and calculate the amount of temp change that amount of energy would produce. If they are correct it is just a fluke that the temps followed changes in the suns influence so well. It IS true we do not know WHY the sun had such a magnified effect but the correlation is much much stronger then the cherry picked case for co2 as a major driver. The suns changes come before the temp changes and the co2 hundreds to thousands of years LATER, but somehow today changes in co2 will alter temps over decades instead of levels slowly rising or falling as temps change.

Here is an article covering some russian stances on the suns influence. They happen to believe we are likely in for a 200-250 year drop in temps.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/29/r ... more-85202

I wish desperately I could make legally binding bets on this topic! No doubt in my mind humans have altered the world greatly but eventually the theory co2 is a major driver of climate will be withdrawn. I have no doubt of that.

I don't know and neither does anyone else.

It simply cannot be proven. There is no double blind method, or control that can possibly prove it one way or the other.

Are people having an impact on the environment, of course they are. so what?

I'm glad someone killed all the bears that used to live in my area, Maybe we can wipe out the scorpions and horseflies too.

All of you should shut up and happily pay a breathing tax to Al Gore. He needs it to pay for that house on the shoreline that he told us would be swallowed by the sea.

Tell the Global Warming story to the people in Minnesota getting hammered with snow on MAY DAY!!!! lol

I know, i know... some will say Global Warming is causing the snow....but you just fit your story to whatever the weather is doing..

-The Great

Global warming has been happening ever since the last Ice Age ended 10,000 plus years ago. (After all, something had to warm up so all the mile thick glaciers would melt!)

Admiral Perry walked across sea ice over ten feet thick (average thickness) to reach the North Pole a century ago. Today, average sea ice in the Northern Hemisphere is less than six feet thick and dropping. Many of the places Perry walked on frozen sea ice now have open water with no ice at all.

In the mid 1970's I walked across "permanent snowfields" up in the mountains of North America. Today those "permanent snowfields" are long gone.

One scientist's explanation is that the Milky Way Galaxy was traveling through a region of space that had a lot of dust in it. The inter-stellar dust cloud impaired the sun's rays from reaching the planet (and Mars) causing global cooling. Now, we have traveled out of the region of inter-stellar dust cloud and more of the sun's rays are reaching the Earth (and Mars) causing global warming.

Factor in the thousands of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year and yes you have global warming.

Telling me that all the carbon emissions released every year into the environment will not cause harmful effects to the climate is like me arguing the TRILLIONS OF FRN's printed by the Federal Reserve will not harm our economy.

It's basically the same argument. The TRILLIONS OF FRN's have not caused runaway inflation yet, have not crashed the stock market yet, have not caused our monetary unit to lose it's position of the world's reserve currency yet, has not caused the bond market to collapse yet, nor has it caused PM prices to zoom to the moon yet. Most people on this forum would argue that one day all those things will happen.

Same thing goes for global warming. It's happening naturally without man's involvement, but we are adding to the problem at any rate.

While I agree that harmful man-made global warming is possible, I voted "no" because I don't think it is likely. I think it is far more likely that it is a politically driven agenda to control and tax most human activity. It is also seems to be a very efficient mechanism for transferring wealth from the Western Democracies (Republics) to third world dictatorships. I get the impression that most of these IPCC "Scientists' who formed the consensus are government-paid hacks who aren't qualified to teach eighth grade science. Also the emails released from East Anglia University a few years ago show they were fudging their data as well as suppressing any research that conflicted with their narrative. Finally keep in mind that Carbon Dioxide comprises fraction of a percent of our atmosphere and is one of several "Greenhouse gases."

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:Factor in the thousands of tons of carbon released into the atmosphere every year and yes you have global warming.

Telling me that all the carbon emissions released every year into the environment will not cause harmful effects to the climate is like me arguing the TRILLIONS OF FRN's printed by the Federal Reserve will not harm our economy.

It's basically the same argument. The TRILLIONS OF FRN's have not caused runaway inflation yet, have not crashed the stock market yet, have not caused our monetary unit to lose it's position of the world's reserve currency yet, has not caused the bond market to collapse yet, nor has it caused PM prices to zoom to the moon yet. Most people on this forum would argue that one day all those things will happen.

Same thing goes for global warming. It's happening naturally without man's involvement, but we are adding to the problem at any rate.

It's pretty clear that TPTB have both the means and incentive to fudge some numbers or suppress research to further their agenda towards a carbon tax...just as the central banks have the means and incentive to manipulate data to further their agenda. Us little people don't have all the data (and won't as long as there's money to be made from our ignorance), so fighting over the hypothetical effects does nothing but play into their hands.

As a rule of thumb, however, doing the opposite of what the politicians are pushing is generally the best course of action for the people.

Engineer wrote: Us little people don't have all the data

Actually you can get at most of the important data. Its pretty obvious the case co2 drives climate is completely cherry picked. I spent years going over it. Even the temp trend lines are entirely cherry picked with many more papers disagreeing with the "official" stance then agreeing with it. Might also point out there are several spots with claimed warming averaged into the data that we have no data for and somehow these warm spots show up despite being extrapolated from cooler readings. Well over half of the temp stations globally and over 90% in the states are sited in areas they have to "adjust" the data because of the poor siting of the stations. These areas account for a large percentage of the warming by themselves. If you use the system we paid millions for literally to correct said siting issues and track temps among other things over the coming decades the temp of the last year or so this system existed is much different then the older system which we get the official data from with improperly sited stations. Several of the feedback loops that cause most of the claimed warming are not happening as claimed such as the increase in water vapor which is actually decreasing where it is most influential. we dont have the major hotspot in the upper atmosphere mandatory for the theory. we also have satellite data showing the heat simply isnt being retained in the manner claimed. I could go on pointing out other holes for some time and still miss many of them.

This is almost certainly political. This certainly isnt to say that we are wise to base a society on fossils or that using them doesnt have major issues. Co2 is definitely not a major climate driver though, that data is clear. The debate is already changing in circles that is matters by the way. which is why you see several previously staunch countries moving back into coal and the like.

I should add there are several ways we ARE affecting climate to some degree, but we dont have solid enough data to pinpoint in exactly what ways, there is a TON of disagreement on those issues. I might also point out most of the claims of what will happen in a warmer world simply are not supported by the data at all. Even the IPCC which isnt as extreme as many had to use grey literature rather then peer reviewed work to paint of picture of the claimed changes to expect.

The most alarming thing in all of this is that wwe have very real enviro issues. But AGW was never about the environment. If you truly study it, the goal is to rob the first world and make itlook like we are helping the third world by giving them a portion of that cash. (most of it is pilfered off the top by the way) But really this will keep the third world down by severely limiting their growth. Im not going to spend the hours to dig all this up, but you can verify everything I said including the international groups pushing this talking about how great it is this will lead to global government. In fact the meetings on this issue were horrible "failures" for the alarmists (and wins for humanity) because they failed to get the first internationally binding laws that a country would be forced into complying with if possible. that was the goal anyway, literally the first vestiges of global governance. There are several angles they tried to push this, such as having a voting system that is somethign is voted in you HAVe to comply. The wanted a military literally to enforce this, and the ability to tax. They cal this "governance" rather then global government and mock those who see this as a push for government. which is funny since they want the ability to make law, enforce it and tax. How is it not government? strangely of all the things I listed youd be the hardest pressed to verify this last bit, but its all there right in the internationally available data if you dig for it. They dont make it easy though.

I might also point out "big oil" has heavily funded many multiples more pro AGW work then anti work, and this is public record. It has been amateur skeptics for the most part who ripped the theory apart long enough that more and more in the field are taking a second look. Such as judith curry I believe is her name, who used to be on the team, she is now mocked heavily with claims she was bought off, because well she looked at the actual raw data and related crimes.

There is a manufactured liberal media science consensus.

The real science shows only a weak trend toward warming with a larger trend more probable toward global cooling with some significant chance of a new ice age. The climate shifts that happen most strongly correlate with sunspot activity.

What needs to happen is all the factories on Earth need to run at full speed, spewing CO2 as much as possible. We need the goods those factories produce to move and rebuild the 50 or more coastal cities inland before the seas rise and inundate them. We need to bring new land into farming production as the climate changes and makes deserts of some areas of existing farmland.

What do the politicians want? More taxes, of course! Do they want to spend the taxes on the above? NO! Why we keep electing idiots is beyond my comprehension.

Humm, global warming due to man's burning of fossil fuels? Maybe. Scam by the govt to get us all used to using less fossil fuels? More probable. Is the climate changing? No argument from me. Have we passed peak production of global oil? No doubt in my mind. Am I completing my "lifeboat strategy"? Yes. Am I seriously looking at a Strategic Relocation (Joel Skousen) to avoid many of the problems associated with a collapse or continued decline in our Empire? For over a decade. Once I get there will I become an "Earth Steward" using several known low tech ways such as permaculture to become self-sufficient and create a garden of Eden oasis in my part of the world? That's the plan.

Much more worrisome to humanities long term home is the fact that each interglacial period is trending shorter AND colder. This interglacial period is a solid 2-3 degrees cooler then the last.

If human released co2 is capable of things naturally released co2 never appears to be in our records (it actually tracks temps by 800 into thousands of years) as the IPCC claims, wed have to get pretty close to the extreme end of their claims to even reach the temp reached in the last interglacial period in about 100 years from now. Of course we are tracking below their best case scenario already as I said,(which correlated to EXTREME cuts) despite releasing slightly more co2 then they estimated.

Do you guys realize if co2 caused warming was real wed have only benefits up to 2 degrees of warming? Coupled with the fact most of the claims beyond that simply arent in the data or a greatly exaggerated? You realize this is ATLEAST 50 years off at the most extreme estimates of co2 sensitivity which includes unproven and failed feedbacks? (we are trending UNDER the best case scenarios)

<<<<<<<<<<< We need to bring new land into farming production as the climate changes and makes deserts of some areas of existing farmland.>>>>>>>>
Desertification is real, although much easier to fix then is often claimed. I wanted to point out though, the idea that a warmer world leads to a drier world is a myth that isnt supported by real world data. Overall wed have more precipitation, and heat isnt a major driver of being dry as counter intuitive as that is. Direct sunlight, relative humidity and wind drive evaporation, heat plays a small role. this is one of the myth activists push with a few particularly weak studies to back them and multiples more data to suggest otherwise.

johnbrickner wrote: Once I get there will I become an "Earth Steward" using several known low tech ways such as permaculture to become self-sufficient and create a garden of Eden oasis in my part of the world? That's the plan.

What are you waiting for? If you happen to move or live in a dry area, remember me. this is my field of study and there are many ignored variables for dry areas in the field. I thought I was coming up with a new mentality for growing until I was on gardening forums and found out permaculture existed. Of course several cultures used the mentality (with less knowledge of course) for thousands of years so its not really new anyway... You realize the word is copy righted? I could never share my work with that label legally unless I paid for rather expensive classes that arent advanced as my work. I had to reteach several I know who went through the courses locally,

I just got a few inches of snow...In MAY!

Global warming my ass...

Also...it was cold in the past, so it will be in the future...or (better fitting)...the temperature vacillated dramatically in the past, and we are alive, so therefore, even if this global thing is actual, it poses no immediate danger...

Just like I was alive yesterday, therefore I will be tomorrow...right?

Anybody remember that in the 70's CO2 was going to cause global COOLING? I remember reading about it in Time or Newsweek magazine. All that awful CO2 was going to make the suns rays bounce off the earth's atmosphere and cool the earth.

Ah yes. I believe it was Time 1975. I think I have copy of it some place.

Cows' farting and burping must be brought under control because they're causing global warming problems, a climate change expert has warned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsi ... 046962.stm

Copper Catcher wrote:
Cows' farting and burping must be brought under control because they're causing global warming problems, a climate change expert has warned.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsi ... 046962.stm

That's it! Ban all cows now!!!

scyther wrote:This topic has come up lately, and I know there are different opinions about it, so... poll.

I really don't know, supposedly there is a strong scientific consensus, but I haven't really noticed it, and I have no way of telling who's lying and who isn't.

I think "climate change" is a better term.

it doesn't all manifest itself in "warming"....I think what happens is the statistical "norms" get stretched out like a rubber band...the parameters widen.

I always found it disheartening that "reading science" is so darn politicized.

inho, "climate change" is real, but the reality is, what can you do about it?

7 billion people GOT to get fed, and be warmed, there's no two ways about it.

the only thing that REALLY worries me is GMO crops...it almost seems to me, like "playing god"...something He doesn't regard with favor. If you narrow the genetic base, narrow genetic diversity?....in my mind, you're playing with fire. And what really never fails to blow my mind, is how self confident man is...how he regards him self as self sufficient and powerful in deed and knowledge. total lack of humility...just some thoughts.