Falsified Data, Lies, & Anthropogenic Global Warming

[TandJ]

Wait, is someone, somewhere telling me they are buying what any politician says?? I just know niethier of my buckets have water for me to carry..

Yeah, certainly there is something going on, yeah we probably had something to do with some portion of it, but dang, I certainly enjoyed the mild summer I felt this year.. Apparently though, this mildness has continued through the fall too..

Regards... Tim of T and J

 

[tricksterpup]

Wait, is someone, somewhere telling me they are buying what any politician says?? I just know niethier of my buckets have water for me to carry..

Yeah, certainly there is something going on, yeah we probably had something to do with some portion of it, but dang, I certainly enjoyed the mild summer I felt this year.. Apparently though, this mildness has continued through the fall too..

Regards... Tim of T and J

Its ok.. its just to prepare you for the heat that the Yellow Stone volcano will give you when it erupts.

 

[TandJ]

Would that cause me to be flushed out? *lol*


*crashing... ZZZzzzZZZzzzZZZzzz*

 

[Rich Z]

Nearly all politicians are opportunistic predators. And we are the prey. No emergency, real or imagined, is going to be passed up if it means an increase in political power, or more money in someone's pocketbook.

Seriously folks, if we are in a naturally occurring periodic change in the climate that has been happening every 7,000 years or so, who would know about it? Scientists habitually make all kinds or pompous proclamations based on the flimsiest amounts of data and interpret them with the airs of absolute knowledge. And yes, and data the disputes the latest status quo is likely to just be discarded rather then held up as a FACT that disputes a dearly held theory.

Sheesh.... Suppose that the climate IS changing. So what? Most likely the change will be bad for some parts of the world, and good for some other parts. There is ample case history to indicate that this is nothing new. Civilizations have vanished because they were created in a place that the climate made no longer hospitable for them. The Sahara Desert wasn't always a desert. Quite likely the Amazon Jungle wasn't always a jungle. And Antarctica wasn't always an ice covered continent. Heck, I can dig down two feet in my own back yard and hit pure white sand. Which means that all the plants now growing there weren't living there all that long ago, geologically speaking.

To all those people who believe that the Earth is supposed to be static and unchanging, well, just take a flight over the USA and look at the landscape underneath you. The evidence is staring you right in the face that this certainly is not the case at all.

 

[Nova_C]

The politicians are largely irrelevant. One says it's something to worry about, the other side says it's not. They cancel each other out. Scientists, on the other hand, have to contend with peer review and repeatable experimentation, so I'll take their word over either political agenda.

It's also interesting to me that this thread has continued down the road of dismissing anthropogenic climate change, but no one has disputed what I posted before, about the hacked e-mails not saying at all what deniers want them to say. Of course, no one has spoken about them at all, so I guess I made my point.

At any rate, considering what happened to the earth the last time it experienced warming like this, I'd prefer we do something to rein it in.

 

[Rich Z]

I'm sorry, but if you believe that scientists are entirely apolitical and driven solely by the thirst for truth, then I believe you are sadly mistaken. Many make their living off of government grants, so they try hard to not bite the hand that feeds them. As such scientists are just as divided about this issue as true dyed in the wool politicians. Some may certainly be because of conflicting interpretations of the facts they have analyzed, but many will be influenced by the concern about where next year's paycheck will be coming from.

As for mankind being the primary influencing factor in climate change, well it strikes me as kind of odd how mankind can one decade be the cause of global cooling, then without changing anything at all, then be accused of causing global warming. Mankind's activities just may be noting more then irrelevant noise in the actual signal. If the topic could be discussed rationally and objectively without all sides trying to jockey for position, I would feel a whole lot better about the efforts being made to determine if there is actually a problem that CAN be controlled by our own efforts.

 

[Nova_C]

Except that I can research how the scientists have come to the conclusions they have. There's a paper trail, a chain of evidence. It's verifiable. There is no equivalent for politicians. It's not like I heard some guy in a lab coat go "Climate change is because of man!" I researched it and now agree with the scientists that mankind's contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has tipped the scale into a warming process.

 

[Pruddock]

Except that I can research how the scientists have come to the conclusions they have. There's a paper trail, a chain of evidence. It's verifiable. There is no equivalent for politicians. It's not like I heard some guy in a lab coat go "Climate change is because of man!" I researched it and now agree with the scientists that mankind's contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has tipped the scale into a warming process.

You want to tell me that bias doesn't go into even the results that are documented in the paper trail? I beg to differ. To be honest, there's no way we can know because we've only documented so little data on historical climates that we can't possibly know the effects of humans on global warming. Not to mention the majority of scientists do NOT support the theory.

 

[Rich Z]

Except that I can research how the scientists have come to the conclusions they have. There's a paper trail, a chain of evidence. It's verifiable. There is no equivalent for politicians. It's not like I heard some guy in a lab coat go "Climate change is because of man!" I researched it and now agree with the scientists that mankind's contribution to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has tipped the scale into a warming process.

I see..... Say, btw, who was it that WROTE the papers in that paper trail?

I've researched the evidence as well, and the conclusion I have come to is that in my lifetime, I am seeing a change in the average temps. My conclusion is that my lifetime is too short of a period of time to make broad sweeping conclusions over. And in a like vein, the period of time that MANKIND has been able to make accurate observations of the climate is too short to make broad sweeping conclusions about those observations as well. The universe is filled with cycles within cycles, most of which we have never experienced, cannot predict, and won't recognize if they are longer then our attention span.

As for "scientists" making ironclad proclamations that mankind is the cause of a major climate change on this planet, well every REAL scientists realizes that empirical data is only observed data upon which they can base a hypothesis. Facts will result in a hoped for accurate hypothesis, not to be confused with claiming that a hypothesis based on observations MUST be fact. I'm sorry, but no one in this big test tube can qualitatively claim that mankind has such an influence because there is no CONTROL subject that can be used as a comparison.

Heck, historically, scientists don't really have a good track record of understanding the world we live in. It really wasn't all that long ago, historically speaking, that the scientists of the day firmly believed that the Earth was flat. They also believed that the universe revolved around the Earth.

So before we allow the politicians to use this sort of pretext to gather more power into their hands, and in turn quite possibly cause more overall damage to society then a warming earth ever could, my suggestion for a best course of action is to not cry "WOLF!" at every opportunity, much less believe that every observational event must BE a wolf.

Do we really want society returned to the days of the medieval Europe in order to curb CO2 emissions? What exactly would that accomplish?

 

[TandJ]

"Thanks for adding to the Reputation of this user "

To bad Rich's Counter does not work...

Regards.. Tim of T and J

 

[kathylove]

Excellent posts, Rich!

After seeing some of the emotional, nonsensical "facts" spewed by "scientists" trying to ban turtle keeping / selling in Florida, and also from those trying to support banning pythons, I have no dewy eyed trust that scientists are all honest researchers whose only interest is in finding the truth. Many of them are just as money grubbing as business people and government employees. I am sure there are SOME scientists who will do anything to find the truth, but they have to prove their ideas to me - their words will find no automatic acceptance by me! However, if their ideas SEEM to make sense, then I am willing to at least consider that they MAY be true.

 

[Nova_C]

After seeing some of the emotional, nonsensical "facts" spewed by "scientists" trying to ban turtle keeping / selling in Florida, and also from those trying to support banning pythons, I have no dewy eyed trust that scientists are all honest researchers whose only interest is in finding the truth. Many of them are just as money grubbing as business people and government employees. I am sure there are SOME scientists who will do anything to find the truth, but they have to prove their ideas to me - their words will find no automatic acceptance by me! However, if their ideas SEEM to make sense, then I am willing to at least consider that they MAY be true.

This is actually a good example.

Let's say there's a huge number of pythons being released into the wild in, say, Florida. Observations of animal populations suggest that the more sensitive native species are in decline. Some scientists say that the pythons being released are out-competing local species for food and territory, thereby contributing to the decline and possible extinction of native species. Other scientists say that the decline is natural and the released pythons are a coincidence and are not having a significant effect on local populations. Several politicians move to ban pythons, but most don't go that far. Most just propose to place restrictions on python trade so that while people can still have pythons as pets, it'll take more effort and money to do so thereby making it less likely a non-committed owner will end up with such a pet and eliminate or at least reduce the number of pythons being released into the wild.

Now, according to Rich Z's last post, the smart money is on the scientists saying there is no effect. He opposes any restrictions on the sale or purchase of pythons in Florida, any laws governing their ownership or any regulations or punishments on their release because nature is cyclical and extinctions are natural. There isn't enough data to prove without a shadow of a doubt that mankind is causing these population declines and since such absolute certainty doesn't exist, the best thing to do is nothing.

This is not necessarily wrong, but I believe it's very, very irresponsible. There is enough evidence available to make regulation appropriate. Banning outright isn't necessary, but placing controls to limit and reduce our negative impact on the environment is, quite simply, a good idea.

Leaving the hypothetical behind, basically, mankind is literally reshaping the earth to suit our needs. Minimizing the damage we do to the ecosystem is pretty much necessary since we've become so numerous. There is absolutely no reason not to start forcing corporations and individuals to shrink their ecological footprint.

Finally, the objections I'm hearing to any and all regulation keep coming back to political gains. That is, many people are objecting to any kind of system of restrictions because they don't want politicians to gain power. Well, we voted them into the most powerful positions in our nations. We can't then use that excuse to keep acting irresponsibly towards our planet. If we don't trust our leaders to lead, then why tolerate them at all?

 

[Rich Z]

This is actually a good example.

Let's say there's a huge number of pythons being released into the wild in, say, Florida. Observations of animal populations suggest that the more sensitive native species are in decline. Some scientists say that the pythons being released are out-competing local species for food and territory, thereby contributing to the decline and possible extinction of native species. Other scientists say that the decline is natural and the released pythons are a coincidence and are not having a significant effect on local populations. Several politicians move to ban pythons, but most don't go that far. Most just propose to place restrictions on python trade so that while people can still have pythons as pets, it'll take more effort and money to do so thereby making it less likely a non-committed owner will end up with such a pet and eliminate or at least reduce the number of pythons being released into the wild.

Now, according to Rich Z's last post, the smart money is on the scientists saying there is no effect. He opposes any restrictions on the sale or purchase of pythons in Florida, any laws governing their ownership or any regulations or punishments on their release because nature is cyclical and extinctions are natural. There isn't enough data to prove without a shadow of a doubt that mankind is causing these population declines and since such absolute certainty doesn't exist, the best thing to do is nothing.

This is not necessarily wrong, but I believe it's very, very irresponsible. There is enough evidence available to make regulation appropriate. Banning outright isn't necessary, but placing controls to limit and reduce our negative impact on the environment is, quite simply, a good idea.

Hmm, I don't know, but I guess I'm disinclined to take serious the recommendations of one highly invasive species over what is prudent and proper concerning another when an objective observation of the laws passed are so obviously self serving. To give examples, although eastern indigo snakes are protected, this does not even slow down the developers from destroying their habitat. And I seem to recall a change in the endangered species laws whereby the fate of any animal in such a category that may be so unfortunate that their habitat pits them against some development mankind wishes to undertake, the fate of that animal will be determined based on which of the two conflicting goals best benefits mankind.

Leaving the hypothetical behind, basically, mankind is literally reshaping the earth to suit our needs. Minimizing the damage we do to the ecosystem is pretty much necessary since we've become so numerous. There is absolutely no reason not to start forcing corporations and individuals to shrink their ecological footprint.

This sort of logic bears watching closely when any political power uses it as the basis of recommendations for the future. The sort of argument based on "everything would be just rosy if we reduced the population" loses it's appeal when YOU might draw the short end of the stick when it comes to that forced reduction.

Finally, the objections I'm hearing to any and all regulation keep coming back to political gains. That is, many people are objecting to any kind of system of restrictions because they don't want politicians to gain power. Well, we voted them into the most powerful positions in our nations. We can't then use that excuse to keep acting irresponsibly towards our planet. If we don't trust our leaders to lead, then why tolerate them at all?

Actually, I can't remember the last time, if ever, that I actually voted FOR someone. Elections are basically a case of most people going to the polls to vote AGAINST the other person because although there is no real good choice, you certainly believe that you would rather accept the lesser of all the evils offered as choices. The only other option is not voting at all, which takes your voice out of the running for even TRYING to get the lesser of evils into office. Of course, that prompts the question of why we are only offered such poor choices as our "leaders", to which I have no satisfactory answer. I will say this, though. If the ballots each had a NONE OF THE ABOVE voting option, I have no doubt whatsoever that the majority of the voters would select that option overwhelmingly.

 

[kathylove]

I don't know that anyone, or at least MOST, are proposing NO regulations...

on any environmental issues, whether invasive species or pollution / global warming, etc. What are opposed are UNREASONABLE regulations, and specifically, bans. Unfortunately, big government has a tendency to try to become bigger. And scientists on the government dole (i.e., grants) tend to support the answer desired.

I am much better versed in the python debate than global warming and other environmental issues, so it is easier for me to frame the debate in those terms. HOWEVER, I think most, or all, of the environmental issues are really the same. That is, do we give up more freedoms and economic opportunity to more government control that will supposedly "save us" and our environment? And if so, to what extent will we allow the government the power to do so? It is a cost vs. benefit equation.

For example, I am willing to live with the regulations that Florida has enacted, requiring a $100 annual fee and documented experience, microchips, etc, to be able to keep big snakes deemed dangerous or invasive. I may think they will not cause problems beyond the Everglades, or might even help many endangered birds and turtles by preying upon artificially abundant raccoons (caused by human activity) that have been wreaking havoc on eggs of endangered species. But I can still compromise because they MIGHT be a problem - in Forida. But having a Federal ban that also applies to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the rest of the snowbelt, is overkill, in my opinion. It will accomplish NOTHING for the environment, and only result in loss of freedom and economic opportunity.

In the same manner, I feel that some of the other environmental government restrictions may also do more to restrict freedom and economic opportunity (and to grow a bigger government) than to actually help the environment.

I would have preferred to see some of the huge amounts of money spent by the government (money we don't have, so fire up the printing presses!) to help huge numbers of people put solar panels on their roofs instead of to make more regulations or to throw good money after bad to big business interests. But large numbers of solar panels would make more people more independent, and to decentralize power. I really don't think that is what the government (or big business) wants at all.

Sorry if I sound paranoid. But it comes from 57 years of observing people, business, and government, so I think my feelings are justified.

 

[Nova_C]

This sort of logic bears watching closely when any political power uses it as the basis of recommendations for the future. The sort of argument based on "everything would be just rosy if we reduced the population" loses it's appeal when YOU might draw the short end of the stick when it comes to that forced reduction.

Forced reduction of population? Where on earth did you get that from my post?

I agree that politicians need to be watched closely. And I honestly haven't just swallowed anything about global warming coming from the 'support' side. I've been convinced by all the evidence that mankind DOES have an effect, a potentially disastrous effect, but in Canada's last election, I voted against the Liberals and their 'Green Shift'? Why? Because when I ran the numbers, I discovered that it's effect on the environment would be negligible, but it's effect on the economy would be unfair. That is, Alberta and Saskatchewan would bear 80% of the cost while Quebec and Ontario (Ontario being one of Canada's worst polluters) would actually be paying less in taxes than they do now.

So yeah, watch those guys. However, this doesn't change the fact that we need to start approaching these solutions and finding some to implement.

 

[kathylove]

"...Actually, I can't remember the last time, if ever, that I actually voted FOR someone..."

You've got THAT right! I often end up voting for the best of two poor choices, (including the last Presidential election). I try to vote FOR the Libertarian candidate, if I think the "Republicrat" choices are equally bad. But if one of the "approved" candidates (the only ones that have much chance in most elections, although 3rd party candidates can win in smaller elections) are REALLY worse than the other, then I skip my 3rd party real choice to try to derail the politician I really DON'T want to see in office.

I find it sad that those are our usual political choices, but that is what it is.

 

[Rich Z]

Forced reduction of population? Where on earth did you get that from my post?

Because when anyone claims the issues are directly related to the number of human beings on this planet, the obvious extension of that thought is "What needs to be done about that particular problem?" And the answer to that is .......

 

[Nova_C]

Because when anyone claims the issues are directly related to the number of human beings on this planet, the obvious extension of that thought is "What needs to be done about that particular problem?" And the answer to that is .......

...so anyone that acknowledges that the human race is very numerous is advocating culling the population? That's a massive leap, Rich, ridiculously so.

 

[vetusvates]

Nova, you said "culling"...which is a massive leap.

I don't see anything wrong with an organized and fair...reduction in production.
I mean, all the money and food we send to 3rd world countries, just so they can copulate to produce even more hungry mouths...seems counter-Darwin-intuitive.

Say, you had to pass a test and procure a license to reproduce.
Or have a certain minimal I.Q.
Or pass a physical, where the bar was set fairly high.
Or be tested for the recessive bad genes that we do have on the books for humans, these days

 

[Pruddock]

All males get microsurgical vasectomy at birth, when you earn enough money to reverse the surgery without insurance, you should also have enough money to feed a hungary mouth. Sounds like a plan to me :rofl: