Fossil Fuel Survialist Guide for the Sane

coaledsweat wrote: More fear mongering to distract us from his failures.

Hey, it's the best report tax dollars could buy !

Paul

dennis8483 wrote: 97% of all climate scientists agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring.

Dennis I'm going to warn you ahead of time this is a topic I'm very familiar with and the studies. There are various studies claiming this figure and all have some serious flaws. There is only one that attempted to directly poll individual scientists. Before I go over the major flaws one of which is huge I'm going to have to ask since you brought this up, can you tell us how many scientist that were directly polled are included in this 97% figure?

Here is the largest problem I see in the whole scheme of things;

coaledsweat wrote:Sunny Boy wrote:Say what you want about the science, but my heating bills say the climate isn't warming.

coaledsweat wrote:Check this out. About to surpass the two coldest years making 2014 the coldest start in recorded history. It is May tomorrow and shipping needs icebreakers in the Great Lakes due to record thick ice.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014 ... s-history/

That is , most look at the issue in terms of their experience with the current weather(laughable) or the conditions observed in the US; views lacking Global perspective or concern.

From what I glean ,hear/read/generally assimilate, Is that the real fear is the unknown "methane tipping point" . I don't really know how many scientists actually polled say that there is global climate change or that humans have any hand in it; but I believe a greater number of scientists feel that if we reach the tipping point the end will be easier to accept knowing we did everything possible to avoid it......

waldo lemieux wrote: I don't really know how many scientists actually polled say that there is global climate change or that humans have any hand in it...

There is not a lot of controversy over whether the earth's temperatures has increased. The debate centers on how much and what is the cause. CO is only one variable of many. We know it's greenhouse gas and can cause the earths temperature to rise but trying to blame CO by itself is like saying insulation can trap heat in your house but you don;t know if the windows are opened or closed.

Richard S. wrote: is like saying insulation can trap heat in your house but you don;t know if the windows are opened or closed.

You may not know for sure why your house is losing or retaining to much heat but Ill bet one of the first things your gonna do is check the status of your windows and adjust them accordingly. The solution doesnt have to be a single faceted affair. But lets not ignore something that may help

I think the important thing is the timeframe you're looking at and the conclusions you attempt to draw. For more than 15 years the published data series show the global mean temperature has statistically flatlined despite a pronounced increase in CO2 concentrations. If you follow the data and not the PR, the whole proposition that CO2 has a meaningful effect on global temperatures needs to be reconsidered. At a minimum, it is way less of a factor than it may have appeared to be in the earlier studies. I care about the future, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to undermine the economy, especially when the actual data already refute the model projections upon which most of the hysteria has been based.

Mike

waldo lemieux wrote:
... Ill bet one of the first things your gonna do is check the status of your windows and adjust them accordingly.

Exactly. Then you have to check your doors, then you have to check for holes in the house, then you have to check.....etc. Climate is complex and each variable has it's own complexity's. For example, CO reflects heat too. It may trap more heat that enters but it slows down the process of it ever entering the earths atmosphere. CO promotes plant growth, the more CO you have the more carbon you have being stored in plant matter.

Coal must actually be the answer to global warming.The more you use,the less you need.What could be better than that?

I think you're assuming CO2 actually has the effects that the alarmists claim, but it does raise an important point. Even if CO2 has those effects, why does there never seem to be any mention of the benefits a warmer climate could produce - reduced FO use, increased farmable area and agricultural productivity, etc. ?

Mike

It's all about the liberal agenda,and the furthering of that.That's why.No benefits will be mentioned,or their hysterics would be wasted,possibly flying right out through the ozone hole. Hey,it just occured to me,maybe it's all their hot air causing global warming.

Hmmm... isn't it interesting that plants only need a few hundred parts per million CO2 to thrive yet we need 20% oxygen at the same pressure to survive...

Yes. That actually ties into my new theory that global warming alarmists are driven by a paralyzing fear of plants, bugs and/or reptiles, and would rather trash the economy than take any chance that human activity might make the environment a little more hospitable to such things. In this scenario, the real threat to civilization would arise if therapy for such fears is treated through Obamacare, which seems like it could cause a black hole or something.

Mike

Lightning wrote:Hmmm... isn't it interesting that plants only need a few hundred parts per million CO2 to thrive yet we need 20% oxygen at the same pressure to survive...

If you had solar panels growing out of you, in the same proportion a maple tree has leaves, you too could operate with a different chemistry and maybe need less oxygen. But you might be more sedentary and unable to dodge unwelcome visitors.

rberq wrote:But you might be more sedentary and unable to dodge unwelcome visitors.

Yep, I definitely wanna be able to run from that guy...

For those that think glo-bull warming/climate change is "settled science" they're looking at the junk science. The actual record of recent year's weather events contradicts the White House saying that there were more sever storms.

There is plenty of examples of good science being accepted without nothing near the level of controversy that glo-bull warming has created. The reason being, it's almost entirely being pushed by Governments to gain more tax dollars and those individuals and institutions that have a monetary interests in it.

It's tough to believe a "Government report" when it's used to get more tax money based on science models that over time, have been shown to be wrong.

And we're supposed to trust that same Government that wasted billions of tax dollars on alternatives such as Solandra and other recent green energy failures ? All that money accomplished was lining the pockets of this administrations big supporters.

Yet that's not proof enough for the lemmings that the flawed climate models backing the Gov. claims are not about protecting the environment, but all about getting more money and power. And, still, the glo-bull warming alarm bell continues to be rung based on those flawed models, ignoring that actual observed weather for more than a decade and a half shows otherwise. And, as more of the world's top scientists leave the glo-bull warming fold.

What I think is the saddest part is that, in the greatest information age in history, rather than becoming more informed, more are willing to become lemmings. The path of least resistance, I guess ?

Here's an interesting view.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/05/06/climate-chang ... els-arent/

Paul