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

[IndyDave1776]

Who do you guys trust in the scientific community to help you understand issues like climate change?

Nothing from people whose conclusions disagree with history and disagree with what I see when I stick my head out the door. If they can't agree with what has actually happened in the past or what is actually happening now, how the hell am I supposed to believe they know a f***ing thing about what is going to happen in the future?

 

[jamil]

Who do you guys trust in the scientific community to help you understand issues like climate change?

Who is telling the truth? The guys who say the data were manipulated or the people who are accused of manipulated the data?

 

[Jludo]

I obviously trust NASA and the other organizations doing the climate research more than the guys saying the data is being manipulated

 

[printcraft]

Well there's your problem.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I obviously trust NASA and the other organizations doing the climate research more than the guys saying the data is being manipulated

So, if on a sunny day, a man wearing a lab coat tells you it's raining while pissing on your leg, you are going to believe it because, by god, he is qualified to tell you that and the casual observer isn't qualified to tell you it is NOT raining and your leg is being pissed on?

 

[chipbennett]

I obviously trust NASA and the other organizations doing the climate research more than the guys saying the data is being manipulated

That the raw data have been manipulated is not in question. Not even the organizations in question deny manipulating the data.

 

[Jludo]

So, if on a sunny day, a man wearing a lab coat tells you it's raining while pissing on your leg, you are going to believe it because, by god, he is qualified to tell you that and the casual observer isn't qualified to tell you it is NOT raining and your leg is being pissed on?

You genuinely think that's a good comparison?

 

[pudly]

That the raw data have been manipulated is not in question. Not even the organizations in question deny manipulating the data.

You genuinely think that's a good comparison?

Yes. I also find it sad that their models have about a 0% accuracy rate for near term changes. Coastal cities were supposed to be underwater already. The fact that they aren't is an "inconvenient truth".

 

[IndyDave1776]

You genuinely think that's a good comparison?

How is it not a good comparison?

The entire premise of man-made global warming rests on the presumption that temperature would NOT increase over time without human causation. Anyone who did not flunk out of history realizes that the Ice Age was not ended by the emissions of coal-burning power plants. The more astute observers will also notice that there was a stronger period of global warming in the 1300s than anything since we began the organized recording of temperature data. So, we start by establishing that the premise itself is faulty.

Next, we move on to the absence of actual warming which Team Labcoat dismisses as a 'pause'. Seriously?

We should also consider that our temperature record keeping started near the bottom of a cooling period. Much of the present argument is much like being born in the late afternoon/evening and then being ready to crap your pants over the sunset.

Then we address the gas emission issue. Funny how natural causes like volcanic activity stack up to human activity, especially with contemporary environmental laws.

After this, we have to consider that the talking heads seem to completely disregard variations in solar activity. Last time I checked, the sun was the primary source of heat on the earth, which would make it seem strange that the venerated and learned would appear to completely discount solar variations in their account of conditions on earth regarding temperature.

IF THEY ARE EITHER GENUINELY MISTAKEN OR ELSE LYING ABOUT THE THINGS I DO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND ADEQUATELY, HOW IN THE UNIVERSE AM I SUPPOSED TO BELIEVE THEM ABOUT THINGS I DO NOT KNOW?

Now, for the fun part: When you consider the politics of the principal advocates of man-made global warming, they are also the principal advocates of a society which severely diminishes individual liberty in favor of collectivism, conformity, and a top-down authoritarian structure. When you combine these two elements, you have a wonderful tool of control in demanding that people conform and obey lest they destroy the planet out from under themselves. So, do you really have such a difficult time understanding why I have a problem believing a narrative which is full of more holes than a Swiss cheese but just happens to be a truly remarkable tool of mass manipulation?

 

[rhino]

Wow. Bill Nye. Really bringing out the big guns.

bachelor of science degree in mechanical engineering

I thought I was told you had to be an "expert in weather" or something like that. And us lowlifes didn't have the education.

Bill Nye does not accurately discuss scientific principles regarding this topic, but it's not because of his degree or lack thereof. He ignores the foundation he obtained in the physical sciences and math in order to practice a new religion, which is not compatible with honest scientific inquiry.

My BS is in mechanical engineering, as is my MS. My area of study in grad school was combustion, which combines chemistry, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer. Guess which of those topics are directly applicable to analyzing atmospheric data, hypotheses, and conclusions?

 

[rhino]

I'd first start with a chemist who would dare, with a straight face, to try to explain how an atmospheric concentration change of CO2 of such a minute mole-fraction that it amounts to adding one additional fan to an already full Ohio State (or Michigan) football stadium would completely change the energy equilibrium.

That the raw data have been manipulated is not in question. Not even the organizations in question deny manipulating the data.

Oh, you and your silly understanding of scientific principles and data analysis. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE???!!!!

 

[jamil]

You genuinely think that's a good comparison?

It's at least as reasonable as choosing Bill Nye as your trusted Climate expert.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Any shakiness of global climate science, real or contrived, is to me rendered unimportant when you consider the shakiness, if not the total absence, of any evidence that humans could stop doing the things that some say is causing the (supposed) problem.

Call me a pessimist, but I think it's much ado about nothing. Either the earth is warming or it isn't, and either humans are causing it or we aren't. What makes anybody think a global population could ever in a million years accomplish the level of cooperation that it would take to control it?

 

[Roadie]

It's at least as reasonable as choosing Bill Nye as your trusted Climate expert.

Trusting Bill Nye as a Climate Expert is akin to trusting Mr. Green Jeans as a Farming Expert

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Trusting Bill Nye as a Climate Expert is akin to trusting Mr. Green Jeans as a Farming Expert

Or trusting Captain Kangaroo with military strategy.

 

[printcraft]

Or trusting Captain Kangaroo with military strategy.

That's just crazy talk.


Everybody knows Cpt. Crunch is who you should listen to.

Although, the roof of my mouth has its doubts still.

 

[rhino]

Any shakiness of global climate science, real or contrived, is to me rendered unimportant when you consider the shakiness, if not the total absence, of any evidence that humans could stop doing the things that some say is causing the (supposed) problem.

Call me a pessimist, but I think it's much ado about nothing. Either the earth is warming or it isn't, and either humans are causing it or we aren't. What makes anybody think a global population could ever in a million years accomplish the level of cooperation that it would take to control it?

This is a good, bottom line point to keep in mind. None of the "strategies" proposed by even the most extreme true believers in the anthropogenic global warming religion will do anything stop whatever changes are occurring or reverse changes that have happened.

 

[printcraft]

Yes but they will feel better.

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Yes but they will feel better.

If it saves even one Condor's life...

 

[Twangbanger]

Any shakiness of global climate science, real or contrived, is to me rendered unimportant when you consider the shakiness, if not the total absence, of any evidence that humans could stop doing the things that some say is causing the (supposed) problem.

Call me a pessimist, but I think it's much ado about nothing. Either the earth is warming or it isn't, and either humans are causing it or we aren't. What makes anybody think a global population could ever in a million years accomplish the level of cooperation that it would take to control it?

You've advanced this argument before. I don't buy it one bit. Here's just one example of why:

When the modern Einstein comes out with a new model for global warming and revolutionized the science I'll be the first to jump on board.

Global Warming is the biggest "Bandwagon" in existence right now. And the millennial generation, who have been watching Bill Nye videos in school since they were eight years old, Eats. It. Up. Until the Tea Party takeover in the U.S. House, even the Republican Party was poised and "ready to act" on Climate Change! No less than our own Dick Lugar, repeatedly re-elected by generations of Buick-driving, tenderloin-eating native Hoosiers, was on board, regarding it as a matter of "not if, but when." The GOP Donors told Congress it was a Good Thing; and when money talks, Republicans listen. Nobody had the balls to stand up to what the Kool Kids were promoting. The only really effective obstacle standing between America and this unalloyed policy disaster is a small group of "extremist" Republicans in the U.S. House - and that could be gone in two election cycles. Who knows: if Obama hadn't exhausted his first-term political capital on Obamacare, and had directed his efforts elsewhere, we might be living under an equivalent piece of legislation dictating energy policy, right now.

So I definitely believe the Human Race has what it takes to jump on a bandwagon, and embrace with a whoop all kinds of ill-conceived plans to "make it better." And whether or not those plans would _actually_ improve anything, affects this line of reasoning not a single bit. The point is: they will do it. They will vote oppression upon themselves, under the banner of Improving Humanity, if it is packaged properly. There are more examples of this than we can even talk about.

I think you underestimate the swindle-ability of the American Public. And I have no reason to believe humans elsewhere in the world are really that different, once a sufficient combination of political pressure, brainwashing, and mob-shaming has been adroitly applied.