Global Warming?

[tungularafishcamp]

I tried, but I could not read this whole thing. But I never found anything about how global warming, or not, would impact agriculture, crop choices, equipment purchases (rice tractors for everyone?).
I am utterly amazed at how far afield this has gone, to a review of the Constitution, comparative religions, and the Big Bang Theory. And anyone who thinks this forum is for redneck tractor drivers should think twice. Personally I like
my neck a little red...

Anyone interested in maneuvering this discussion a little closer to what Bird had in mind, or are you having too much
fun as it is? How many folk still dream of a beach front property? Me, I think I'm heading to a retirement home at least 500 feet above sea level and far from the coast, though that pains me because I'm an avid boater.
I'd be interested to know how rising oceans, if they do..., would impact food production, and where. How about home/barn construction and building codes to withstand more severe weather? How many windmills should the average Kansas farmer have if the average wind speed increases due to more serious weather? Would putting a catalytic converter on my wood stove or fireplace chimney make a whit of difference? My suburban neighbors, btw, utterly love the smell of our fireplace; they've all switched to propane.

One poster on this forum has repeatedly asked why religious debate isn't moved somewhere else. And guess what, the "friendly religious forum" discussion just got yanked today in its entirety. Gone. I hope this thread doesn't go too, and wonder if focusing it a bit more on agriculture might keep it around a bit longer.
Just wondering if we can nudge this discussion, if desired, a little further away from politics and religion, which tend to complicate issues beyond belief.

Just gotta build yourself a houseboat and you can follow the coastline right up the hill:laughing:

 

[newbury]

1) We'll leave the Mittster out of this reply as he is now irrelevant.:thumbsup:

<snip>
3) You immediately get into money and politics without bothering to stop and look at the data or science. That is in fact a pretty good description of what the denier community does. They are skeptical mostly of any data or finding that doesn't fit with their political views. <snip>

However, and I'm NOT trying to make this political, "the Mittster" is partially both relevant AND irrelevant BECAUSE his organization ignored the data and the science in the statistics. His "polling" people were true pollsters, they had no horns, they were not accurate, they didn't run the numbers correctly up until the end. They KNEW they were right so why look at other data? Everybody else was biased.

As I've harped on it before, I worked with a lot of dedicated Army professionals, all with advanced degrees in the physical sciences. The bias against Global Warming during GWB's early administration was 100% to begin with. Every time I'd point out a fact they would laugh at me. It wasn't until 2005 when they started to believe.
From the wicki:

The Bush Administration's stance on global warming, and in particular its questioning the consensus of scientists, would remain controversial in the scientific and environmental communities during his presidency. In 2004, the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute, James E. Hansen, came out publicly and harshly accusing the Administration of misinforming the public by suppressing the scientific evidence of the dangers of greenhouse gases, saying the Bush Administration wanted to hear only scientific results that 吐it predetermined, inflexible positions and edited reports to make the dangers sound less threatening in what he asserted was "direct opposition to the most fundamental precepts of science."[26][27] Other experts, such as former U.S. Department of Energy official Joseph Romm, have decried the Bush administration as a "denier and delayer" of government action essential to reduce carbon emissions and deter global warming.[28]

In 2005, Council on Environmental Quality chairman and former oil industry lobbyist Philip Cooney, was accused of doctoring and watering down descriptions of climate research from other government agencies. The White House denied these reports.[29] Two days later, Cooney announced his resignation [30] and conceded his role in altering the reports. "My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration," he told the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.[31] [32]

It's bad enough when research is halted on things that may "look bad".
It is especially bad when REAL scientists write research reports which are changed by "officials" to show a different result.
Who wants to go to the auto mechanic and after a series of tests be told the car is OK, just because the mechanic didn't like to do brake work?

More than once I had to do a "study" on new procedures and expensive (even for the Army) equipment that my bosses wanted the Army to buy. I stayed out of the politics. The first time I gave a negative report on equipment that my boss "liked" (I think the contractor wined and dined him extensively) there was H*** to pay. The second and third time they started to trust my judgement.

Ignoring facts, "cherry picking" data is wrong on any side. The vast majority of science agrees with the premise of AGW. The easy solution would be to cool the planet down with a few decades of volcanic activity or nuclear war. That might not be good.

 

[toppop52]

1. The economy could indeed grow forever into infinity, saying it can't is a misconception. So long as new inventions, discoveries and people are brought into the world. Now if creativity and entrepreneurship is discouraged or curtailed then of course that stunts it. Over regulation and taxation being 2 of the favorite business growth killers.
2. Raising the minimum wage to $12.50 across the board would be a major success, it would succeed in causing inflation across the board and putting many small employers out of business, thus resulting in net job loss and increasing entitlements which are already way too prevalent. You can't arbitrarily raise wages in a vacuum, they affect everything else.
3. If you seriously think any major politician is putting the environment first, you're a prime candidate for beachfront property in Arizona. His political ambitions and dogma/agenda are front and center. You better recognize!
4. Contrary to what is driven down our throats, science really does not know what the climate or even weather will be doing in 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years or 2 centuries. We may be headed for catastrophic climate change, we probably are, in fact we should be! Why, because that is normal, read your history.
5. Politics does not further the cause of science, it curtails it.

 

[madmax12]

1. The economy could indeed grow forever into infinity, saying it can't is a misconception. So long as new inventions, discoveries and people are brought into the world. Now if creativity and entrepreneurship is discouraged or curtailed then of course that stunts it. Over regulation and taxation being 2 of the favorite business growth killers.
2. Raising the minimum wage to $12.50 across the board would be a major success, it would succeed in causing inflation across the board and putting many small employers out of business, thus resulting in net job loss and increasing entitlements which are already way too prevalent. You can't arbitrarily raise wages in a vacuum, they affect everything else.
3. If you seriously think any major politician is putting the environment first, you're a prime candidate for beachfront property in Arizona. His political ambitions and dogma/agenda are front and center. You better recognize!
4. Contrary to what is driven down our throats, science really does not know what the climate or even weather will be doing in 2 weeks, 2 months, 2 years or 2 centuries. We may be headed for catastrophic climate change, we probably are, in fact we should be! Why, because that is normal, read your history.
5. Politics does not further the cause of science, it curtails it.

It's not as much about facts or history, as it is about the future desired.

 

[madmax12]

You are pointing out an example of "the tragedy of the commons" Tragedy of the commons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia which is an important conundrum in economic/political theory. Yes, one way to enforce compliance with "common good" goals is to for example put a $5/gallon tax on gas which would give us European prices and force everyone except Mitt Romney's wife to drive smaller cars. I don't deny that sort of maneuvering might come to pass here as it has overseas if the political climate changes. So long as we don't just piss the extra revenue away, that might both cut carbon and the deficit although it would clearly penalize suburban and rural families far more than those who live where public transport or smaller cars are already the norm.

So I agree money is not irrelevant. However, what you are saying, smarty pants, is that money trumps science and reality. You'd rather remain dumb on the climate science because you fear where it may lead. You would rather protect your conservative financial views than understand what science tells us about the climate because you fear the consequences of the science driven public policy. That's kinda bass ackards don't you think? Kinda like the Pope in Galileo's time.

I'd say it is most important to get the science right and then debate how best to proceed.

I see religion is an acceptable topic, when it is the punching bag.

 

[mistermcgoo]

Buddy boy you have your head so far up your arse it is hard to even begin to reply. If you EVER read something other than a nutcase right wing blog you might realize how extreme your views are. Why not spend a few hours reading Global Warming and Climate Change skepticism examined I have spent that much time reading the various blogs you guys have posted links to. Even Fox has a story today on CO2 levels being the highest ever measured. Maybe they are also useful idiots.

Ah yes. "Skeptical" Science, an oxymoron. The place where posts putting them in a bad light are deleted, censored, edited and past threads are "altered" to fit the narrative. If people follow your advice they should probably save the page because it may change or disappear the next time. Evidence available upon request.

John Cook is, how shall I say this......less than honest.

Well IslandTractor, I have been following this whole global warming charade since 1988 and even bought into it for a good 15 or so years. I began questioning the "experts" around 2003 when their predictions weren't materializing. My eyes were opened wide when the hockey stick debacle was first exposed in 2005 and the political cover given to Michael Mann. Didn't Climategate teach you anything?

So far from what I can see is all you've offered are Appeals to Authority and other logical fallacies, in addition to ad hominem attacks.

 

[Johnp33]

Having a group that mixes religion, and politics and discounts science is just plain ignorant. That is how you get the Paul Ryan's of the world believing in the magic woman's response to rape.
If you look up the Republican response to global warming 10 years ago before the Koch brothers bought them all off, they were the ones that put forward the carbon credit ideas.
Heat is power, and the heat at the equator wants to go to the north and the cold north wants to move south, the hotter the water at the equator the bigger the storms will be.That includes hurricanes, any big storm, and tornado's.
I believe everyone should have a space on their tax form, saying they do not believe in global warming, then if their property is damaged, they do not expect any help, it must be GOD's will.