Report: No "Global Warming" for 325 Months...

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

We need to stop all of this focus on CO2 when all we need to do is eliminate the real greenhouse gas culprit. Dihydrogen Oxide.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

There's one thing that I totally don't understand, and I've said it many times, but I don't believe I've heard or read it on any media source, whether political or scientific.

Even if global warming/global climate change is happening, and even if humans are the major cause, what makes anyone believe that it could be stopped? Because I don't believe it could be stopped, even if every single person on the earth did believe it.

I think that the really huge, enormously under-proven assumption is that the world's population could change millions of years of evolutionary programming and drastically change in a short time. Humans have the ability to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of a relatively small group to which they belong; that's the manner in which we evolved. What humans do not have is any ability whatsoever to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of people that they don't know, who live in far away places. We have the ability to recognize the concept, and some people even believe that they practice it, but we don't have that ability because it is completely contrary to our evolution.

 

[Twangbanger]

There's one thing that I totally don't understand, and I've said it many times, but I don't believe I've heard or read it on any media source, whether political or scientific.

Even if global warming/global climate change is happening, and even if humans are the major cause, what makes anyone believe that it could be stopped? Because I don't believe it could be stopped, even if every single person on the earth did believe it.

I think that the really huge, enormously under-proven assumption is that the world's population could change millions of years of evolutionary programming and drastically change in a short time. Humans have the ability to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of a relatively small group to which they belong; that's the manner in which we evolved. What humans do not have is any ability whatsoever to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of people that they don't know, who live in far away places. We have the ability to recognize the concept, and some people even believe that they practice it, but we don't have that ability because it is completely contrary to our evolution.

I think attributing the inevitability of Global Warming only to human psychological factors would be to miss the point. If GW is inevitable, it isn't because Man is inherently a selfish pig by nature, culture, or evolution. The greater weight of scientific evidence suggests it's inevitable because the Earth has always experienced temperature fluctuations, of a magnitude greater than the one we're prattling about here. The science that's really being ignored is the eons of natural history buried beneath our feet, telling the climate history of the Earth - and it's the Global Warming True-Believers who are ignoring it. To anthropocentricize the warming of the planet seems akin to the rooster believing his crowing makes the sun rise.

But even if we approach this as an expression of the limitations of human psychological evolution, we're still probably missing the more salient point. The real psychological theme here is the attempt by some humans to take that which is scientifically inevitable, hitch a political agenda to it, and thereby seek to rule, control, and enslave their fellow men.

There's the human psychological foible which needs to be stuck into a petri-dish and examined.

 

[chipbennett]

There's one thing that I totally don't understand, and I've said it many times, but I don't believe I've heard or read it on any media source, whether political or scientific.

Even if global warming/global climate change is happening, and even if humans are the major cause, what makes anyone believe that it could be stopped? Because I don't believe it could be stopped, even if every single person on the earth did believe it.

I think that the really huge, enormously under-proven assumption is that the world's population could change millions of years of evolutionary programming and drastically change in a short time. Humans have the ability to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of a relatively small group to which they belong; that's the manner in which we evolved. What humans do not have is any ability whatsoever to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of people that they don't know, who live in far away places. We have the ability to recognize the concept, and some people even believe that they practice it, but we don't have that ability because it is completely contrary to our evolution.

It is all irrelevant. The magnitude of the natural climate cycle of the earth dwarfs any variations humans have observed. We live in a very temperate time, with minute variations. What does it really matter if humans cause a few tenths of a degree of climate temperature change, when the earth itself cycles by orders of magnitude greater than that, all on its own, as it has done for 500 million years?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Even if some super smart genius type who knows SCIENCE came here to school us, I would not realize it. My intellectual and educational deficiencies preclude recognition of a superior being's presence.

Especially when they're a student at IU. All the geniuses are students at IU.

Is there a color for really funny sarcasm? Hahaha.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

There's one thing that I totally don't understand, and I've said it many times, but I don't believe I've heard or read it on any media source, whether political or scientific.

Even if global warming/global climate change is happening, and even if humans are the major cause, what makes anyone believe that it could be stopped? Because I don't believe it could be stopped, even if every single person on the earth did believe it.

I think that the really huge, enormously under-proven assumption is that the world's population could change millions of years of evolutionary programming and drastically change in a short time. Humans have the ability to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of a relatively small group to which they belong; that's the manner in which we evolved. What humans do not have is any ability whatsoever to significantly alter their own behavior for the benefit of people that they don't know, who live in far away places. We have the ability to recognize the concept, and some people even believe that they practice it, but we don't have that ability because it is completely contrary to our evolution.

Don't know if I completely buy that...people volunteer to help people they'll never meet all the time. Most charities are for people you'll never meet. Missionaries devote their lives to helping people they are yet to meet and some they will never meet. Humans' compassion - arguably by evolution for the preservation of the species - I have read is just that. Often from the evolutionary side the tertiary level of aid (ones self, then one's clan, then to those who are similar - species) is manifested by altered behavior to aid those who are of the same species, but will never meet.

 

[rhino]

Is there a color for really funny sarcasm? Hahaha.

I am shocked and appalled at the implication that any statement I may or may not have made on INGO could possibly be construed or not construed or misconstrued as sarcasm. Why, I do not even understand the concept. SHOCKED. AND, APPALLED.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I am shocked and appalled at the implication that any statement I may or may not have made on INGO could possibly be construed or not construed or misconstrued as sarcasm. Why, I do not even understand the concept. SHOCKED. AND, APPALLED.

...sorry...was having a Desert Storm Flashback...

 

[jamil]

Is there a color for really funny sarcasm? Hahaha.

Close as I could find to passionate pink.

 

[JollyMon]

Storm in the north east hasn't even hit yet and its already has been blamed on GM.

Global warming leads to wild La Niña weather, including events like this big East Coast snowstorm ? Quartz

 

[rhino]

...sorry...was having a Desert Storm Flashback...

So which hand did you use to fan away the flies while you were eating?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You INGOers are just being rude and selfish and trying to deprive some poor "climatologist" (with a degree in electrical engineering or basket weaving) from getting his government funding for toeing the "climate-nazi" line. How can you expect to get funding if you're a scientist and not following the accepted party line? Do you think research grants grow on trees? Why, if this Global Climate Change theory gets disproven, the poor GCC "climatologist" might have to get a real job and learn how to do the Scientific Method all over again. What a waste THAT would be.

 

[actaeon277]

Storm in the north east hasn't even hit yet and its already has been blamed on GM.

Global warming leads to wild La Niña weather, including events like this big East Coast snowstorm ? Quartz

Cause we've never had snowstorms, in the winter, before.

 

[pudly]

The blizzard was a bust. Does that mean global warming is over?

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

So which hand did you use to fan away the flies while you were eating?

Why the LEFT of course. Everyone knows what the left hand is for. It's not for eating and definitely NOT for shaking hands! HAHAHA.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

Storm in the north east hasn't even hit yet and its already has been blamed on GM.

Global warming leads to wild La Niña weather, including events like this big East Coast snowstorm ? Quartz

Wait, what?! GW causes La Nina? What about all the La Nina before the industrial revolution? Oh - you mean NON-human induced GW. Ok. I'm good.

 

[rob63]

The blizzard was a bust. Does that mean global warming is over?

Fortunately, the government went ahead and shut down the East coast before it didn't happen, so they got to enjoy global warming while it lasted.

 

[rhino]

You INGOers are just being rude and selfish and trying to deprive some poor "climatologist" (with a degree in electrical engineering or basket weaving) from getting his government funding for toeing the "climate-nazi" line. How can you expect to get funding if you're a scientist and not following the accepted party line? Do you think research grants grow on trees? Why, if this Global Climate Change theory gets disproven, the poor GCC "climatologist" might have to get a real job and learn how to do the Scientific Method all over again. What a waste THAT would be.

If I may dare to be serious for a moment, I maintain that someone with a legitimate degree in electrical engineering (or any engineering or physical science discipline) is more qualified to study and interpret data and analysis of weather and climate that are many of the people considered to be "experts" in the field. They have demonstrated a strong foundation in mathematics, physical sciences, statistics, and data analysis that is clearly lacking among a significant number of those who purport to "study" climate change.

Okay, I'm done.

Cause we've never had snowstorms, in the winter, before.

If such a disastrous event ever occurred, chaos would ensue.

Why the LEFT of course. Everyone knows what the left hand is for. It's not for eating and definitely NOT for shaking hands! HAHAHA.

Touche, sir!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

The blizzard was a bust. Does that mean global warming is over?

No. It means they need more money to perfect their models. GW is a consensus. It is. It just is. The fact they can't accurately predict it only means the funding has not been adequate.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

No. It means they need more money to perfect their models. GW is a consensus. It is. It just is. The fact they can't accurately predict it only means the funding has not been adequate.

This man GETS it.