Chicken Little Might Be Wrong?

[rocketman]

Despite the politics of this issue, at its base lies a simple question: is the earth getting warmer over time, or not?

It really isn't a simple question or science would have definitive answers, and they do not. What we do know is that the earth goes through many climate iterations both warming & cooling, the fact that politicians want to use it as an issue to tax the citizenry, and grab up liberty with is what makes most of the so called science behind their hysteria bogus...it is all driven by agenda, not by actual science. For every climatologist that agrees with the hysteria there are just as many scientists saying "not so fast" I believe the real hubris lies with those that push this as if it is settled science...far from it, or that humans have it within their power to change the planetary climate one way or another, nature itself produced more carbon emissions than humans just with the Australian fires alone (not started by humans), volcanic activity, natural methane from plant & animals...cmon man think with your own brain instead of being a mind numbed drone being fed information & lapping it up willingly without question. No, I don't buy the hysteria for the mere fact that scientist don't know, they think they know but, it isn't a settled matter by any means, only the politics of it seems to be settled.

 

[quip]

....the fact that politicians want to use it as an issue to tax the citizenry, and grab up liberty with is what makes most of the so called science behind their hysteria bogus...

I'm on the fence on this issue and you do make some points here. One sincere question relating to your (edited) post: What taxes and liberty grabs would ensue upon the citizenry? (Empasis on 'citizenry' not industry.)

 

[ok doser]

I'm on the fence on this issue and you do make some points here. One sincere question relating to your (edited) post: What taxes and liberty grabs would ensue upon the citizenry? (Empasis on 'citizenry' not industry.)

For a personal example, I have to buy incandescent light bulbs off ebay today, from people who stockpiled them before they were banned.

Same with low-flush toilets

similarly, I have to buy my insecticides and weed killers (and catalytic converter for a classic car) from sellers outside NY and have them shipped to my sister in Mississippi, from whence she then repackages and ships to me.

 

[ok doser]

It really isn't a simple question or science would have definitive answers, and they do not. What we do know is that the earth goes through many climate iterations both warming & cooling, the fact that politicians want to use it as an issue to tax the citizenry, and grab up liberty with is what makes most of the so called science behind their hysteria bogus...it is all driven by agenda, not by actual science. For every climatologist that agrees with the hysteria there are just as many scientists saying "not so fast" I believe the real hubris lies with those that push this as if it is settled science...far from it, or that humans have it within their power to change the planetary climate one way or another, nature itself produced more carbon emissions than humans just with the Australian fires alone (not started by humans), volcanic activity, natural methane from plant & animals...cmon man think with your own brain instead of being a mind numbed drone being fed information & lapping it up willingly without question. No, I don't buy the hysteria for the mere fact that scientist don't know, they think they know but, it isn't a settled matter by any means, only the politics of it seems to be settled.

I posted this on another thread but it applies here - Peterson discussing climate change - he does tend to ramble, but I find him terrifically amusing as an example of an irascible older Canadian gentlemen, a type I know well and love.

1:30 There's no viable way to measure the effectiveness of any response taken today

towards the end his humanism shows through the irascibility - I have yardwork to do today, think I'll listen to Bjorn Lomborg while I rake

 

[rocketman]

I'm on the fence on this issue and you do make some points here. One sincere question relating to your (edited) post: What taxes and liberty grabs would ensue upon the citizenry? (Empasis on 'citizenry' not industry.)

Any tax upon industry is passed on to the consumer...always! which translates to more for goods & services so the taxation is ours collectively, and what about cap & trade? is that not a direct tax upon the consumer? What really bugs me about this issue is the fact that human beings think by throwing money at a problem they have absolutely no control of, will somehow magically reverse the climate on a planetary scale...it is absolutely absurd, too may variables... furthermore, even if it were in humankind's ability to change the planetary climate why is the USA the only ones expected to make radical change while countries like China, India, and a great portion of Africa not expected to step up, it is not truly a global crisis unless every nation & continent is required to keep the same standard. As far as liberty grabs I would point out that when the government decides that I cannot drive a certain vehicle, or that I am mandated to pay for solar panels for my home, or what I can, or cannot eat, et.al. than yes, your liberty to live your life without government intervention is in fact infringed upon. I am glad to see at least you are not dogmatic about a very subjective issue, in fact there is enough uncertainty in the scientific community on both sides of this issue to warrant a lot more data before I will land one way or another on the issue, it's science after all which means nothing is ever really settled, and hysteria just doesn't move me. :thumb:

 

[chair]

It really isn't a simple question or science would have definitive answers, and they do not. What we do know is that the earth goes through many climate iterations both warming & cooling, the fact that politicians want to use it as an issue to tax the citizenry, and grab up liberty with is what makes most of the so called science behind their hysteria bogus...it is all driven by agenda, not by actual science. For every climatologist that agrees with the hysteria there are just as many scientists saying "not so fast" I believe the real hubris lies with those that push this as if it is settled science...far from it, or that humans have it within their power to change the planetary climate one way or another, nature itself produced more carbon emissions than humans just with the Australian fires alone (not started by humans), volcanic activity, natural methane from plant & animals...cmon man think with your own brain instead of being a mind numbed drone being fed information & lapping it up willingly without question. No, I don't buy the hysteria for the mere fact that scientist don't know, they think they know but, it isn't a settled matter by any means, only the politics of it seems to be settled.

You are confusing completely separate issues:
1) Is the Earth warming? This is a simple question, and science has a simple answer to it. "Yes"
2) Is this warming due to human activity? This is a more complex question.
3) Should we do something about it? Also a complex question, and a political one to boot.

People who are against doing something about this (#3), for some reason insist that #1 isn't a simple question with a simple answer.

 

[ok doser]

You are confusing completely separate issues:
1) Is the Earth warming? This is a simple question, and science has a simple answer to it. "Yes"
2) Is this warming due to human activity? This is a more complex question.
3) Should we do something about it? Also a complex question, and a political one to boot.

People who are against doing something about this (#3)

that would be me

... for some reason insist that #1 isn't a simple question with a simple answer

#1 Is the earth warming?

beats me :idunno:

can you tell me, for example, what the average temperature of the inner and outer core is, and how many direct samples have been measured to determine that?

 

[ok doser]

3) Should we do something about it?

Here's Bjorn Lomborg, who is probably smarter than you and me put together, reasoning it out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjørn_Lomborg In 2009, Business Insider cited Lomborg as one of "The 10 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics".[2] While Lomborg campaigned against the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, he argued for adaptation to short-term temperature rises, and for spending money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions. His issue is not with the reality of climate change, but rather with the economic and political approaches being taken (or not taken) to meet the challenges of that climate change.

 

[chair]

can you tell me, for example, what the average temperature of the inner and outer core is, and how many direct samples have been measured to determine that?

No. Nor is it relevant.

 

[ok doser]

No. Nor is it relevant.

Not sure why you'd think so - the temperature at the interface between the inner and outer core is calculated to be about 6000 C - roughly the same temp as the surface of the sun

IOW, we're sitting above a massive heat source, fueled by radioactive decay among other factors, about 5150 km below us

Meanwhile, we're totally focusing our attention on a massive heat source, fueled by a continual fusion reaction, 150,000,000 km above us


and totally ignoring the effects that keep this rock molten, 778 million kilometers from the sun

 

[chair]

Not sure why you'd think so - the temperature at the interface between the inner and outer core is calculated to be about 6000 C - roughly the same temp as the surface of the sun

IOW, we're sitting above a massive heat source, fueled by radioactive decay among other factors, about 5150 km below us

Meanwhile, we're totally focusing our attention on a massive heat source, fueled by a continual fusion reaction, 150,000,000 km above us


and totally ignoring the effects that keep this rock molten, 778 million kilometers from the sun

Just answer this:
Is the Earth warming?

By "Earth" I mean the planet we live on. I am referring to the surface of that planet.

You are trying to confuse something that is plain and simple and has a concrete answer.

 

[ok doser]

Just answer this:
Is the Earth warming?

By "Earth" I mean the planet we live on. I am referring to the surface of that planet.

the surface of the planet warms and cools

has been for quite a while

ever since the end of the last ice age, it's been warming

eventually, it will start cooling again, same as it always has

 

[Right Divider]

Just answer this:
Is the Earth warming?

By "Earth" I mean the planet we live on. I am referring to the surface of that planet.

You are trying to confuse something that is plain and simple and has a concrete answer.

"Measuring" the temperature on the entire surface of a planet is not the exact science that you think that it is.

 

[ok doser]

"Measuring" the temperature on the entire surface of a planet is not the exact science that you think that it is.

it's worse than that - we're pretending to know the temperature from the outer reaches of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean - or, if we don't have good data, we're pretending that it doesn't matter, that the mostly terrestrial data is representative

we're playing the same game of make-believe with CO2 levels

 

[Right Divider]

it's worse than that - we're pretending to know the temperature from the outer reaches of the atmosphere to the depths of the ocean - or, if we don't have good data, we're pretending that it doesn't matter, that the mostly terrestrial data is representative

we're playing the same game of make-believe with CO2 levels

True... I only mentioned the surface because he said "I am referring to the surface of that planet."

 

[chair]

The past few posts illustrate quite nicely what I wrote earlier.

1) Is the Earth warming? This is a simple question, and science has a simple answer to it. "Yes"
2) Is this warming due to human activity? This is a more complex question.
3) Should we do something about it? Also a complex question, and a political one to boot.

People who are against doing something about this (#3), for some reason insist that #1 isn't a simple question with a simple answer.

 

[ok doser]

#1 isn't a simple question with a simple answer

Now you're starting to get it :thumb:

 

[quip]

"#1 isn't a simple question with a simple answer."

Now you're starting to get it :thumb:

Yet, your simple answer is to deny it.

 

[ok doser]

Yet, your simple answer is to deny it.

No

See post 52

 

[quip]

No

See post 52

"...eventually, it will start cooling again, same as it always has"

Sounds like a flip dismissal to me.

In the indeterminate meantime do we contribute to the rise, perhaps until we reach a crisis point?