NASA blows hole in global warming alarmism

^^ well stated!

 

+1

Some group of the population is paying the true costs, but there are shifts. The governator's didn't pay his share of his hydrogen hummer, but were shifted to other payers.

When taxes are collected the collecting agency often distorts the costs, so income taxes pay for gasoline ethanol, but the environmental polution is concentrated away from Washington where the bribes take place. A sensible taxation would have a positive impact on the economy. Especially if income taxes were reduced, as corporate welfare was reduced, and fuel taxes raised. I don't have much hope of that happening though.

+1

The subsidies also corupt the decission making process, so that more oil is imported than if the price included proper taxes for medical and environmental damage. I do not believe that DOD expenses are legitimate, and if people in Washington worked properly we would not follow the carter doctrine or the Reagan corollary of war for oil.

Now is not the time, but market distortions hurt rather than help the economy in the long run.

Someone is playing with sensationalistic journalism. I serverly doubt having large numbers of troops in foreign countries helps us actually get oil. The terrorists will sell us oil at a price, with or without the troops, in fact the large military has likely made the price of oil higher.

You need to include the future, and yes we are paying the costs. It is just not at the pump.

 

diatribe? no. disappointment? yes.
I have not realized that when it comes to keynesian economics there is something to debate. I'd refer you to any college level economics class, but if you need to.. let's also discuss why water is wet, and what classical properties (earth, water, air, fire and aether) things are made of.

Actually what was stated that highway emergency services and highway policing, not the unrelated to transportation police and ambulance services.

What you suggesting is confederation, and United States isn't one. This has been decided 150 years ago, do you think it is time to revisit it again?

 

This is a very valid point. Unfortunately we are the grandchildren who are paying the costs of decisions made in 50s, 60s, 70s and beyond. Allowing car companies to buy out and destroy public transportation system, de-funding cities in favor of interstate projects, tax breaks and subsidies, all what we consider "american way of life" would not exist if we were to pay true costs.

 

ok. so we should spend our energies debating possible changes in global climate over the next several decades...

or maybe discuss the "unusual" weather we have had. the drought that will most likely cause a 40-50% reduction in crop yields this year thru out the entire plains which is expected to cause better than 100% increase in food prices for certain staples (expect the bargain store brand bread to be $3 a loaf come next spring)

or maybe wonder about where the ice over the Arctic has gone. now this is not a study. this is a measurement. ok, so no math involved here. simply reading a tape measure. i am pretty sure a qualified scientist can do that much well enough to see that less is less.

now, is the weather we are having any correlation to GCC? well, not getting into that debate. but its interesting to see areas of the country that average 4-12 days over 100º per year that are hitting 20-30 days in a row over 100.

 

We are having what my grandpa would call "a hot one". i'm old enough to remember heat waves like this in years past. it happens from time to time. my prediction is that next summer will not be as hot as this one.

I'm not saying you do this, Dave, but it bothers me when there is a double standard. If we can look at this year which has been a hot summer and point to global warming, then we can not get upset when a "denier" looks at say, last year, and says it's cooler than normal and therefore global warming is bogus. What's the difference? Both sides are looking to one year or one season and using it as evidence for their belief.

 

PC, they'd definitely be wrong if they cherry pick a year and say "see, it's hotter ergo global warming". You have to look at trends over decades. Also, global temps are the key, not how hot/cold it is in any particular place at a point in time.

 

This is a point where I feel that many of those arguing the AGW case, in arenas of political action and public opinion, are shooting themselves in the foot. Humans are naturally equipped with short, selective, and biased memories, and a very powerful ability to see and extract patterns and trends out of data that is really random non-Gaussian noise.

For this reason I must discard the common hype about 'extreme weather' and people's perceptions of changing and unusual weather. Skip all that fluff, just show me the hard data coming from the scientists.

 

So what do you say when the scientists themselves are saying that July 2011 is the most extreme month of weather in the US on record?

Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog : July 2011: Most extreme July on record for the U.S. : Weather Underground

July (according to the data) was an extreme month of high temps, low temps, drought and flooding!

 

i am not saying that this years weather is global warming. it aint that simple and WE ALL KNOW THAT and we have been here long enough to know each other.

the weather as you know is cyclical and so it kinda swings like a pendulum. a perfect example would be this year. in 2009 we had a record summer, BIG TIME. living on Puget Sound, the average summer temp is like 75º. we had two weeks that hit 90º (we average 3-5 days a year in the 90's) that was 2009. u can go back to PC archives and read about me whining about it.

around here, you dont turn on AC when it gets hot simply because 88% of households dont have it and who needs it?? so we went and got one of those window things and basically huddled in one room for 2 weeks. we went out for work and nothing else. delivery was our savoir!!

now fast forward to this year; we had one day at 88º and a few in the low 80's. that is the extent of our summer so far this year. as i type this, its 49º so as much as i thought GW started in 2009 it is now apparent that we still have a few more years or decades to go.

but what is becoming apparent to me is that our contributions to the atmosphere is causing more destabilization of our climates. its not getting warmer or colder at least average wise. the pendulum is just swinging at a much greater arc. we have added a few more degrees of swing and that is what is contributing to what we are seeing here.

the weather we have here is not normal, not at all but if we average it over 10 years it will look normal from a distance. but is that going to help the people in the plains states who have had no rain, unrelenting heat and major crop failure? or the massive flooding this past spring or the snows of last winter or the wildfires of last fall?

all these things are happening with weather that has been unusual but will invariably average out in a few years.

i dont see this is "business as usual" and i think we are back to the "is the 150 million tons of greenhouse gases i help contribute to the atmosphere every day make a difference?"

everything has a breaking point.

 

Fuzzy would say that July 2011 was the most extreme month on record. What he wouldn't say is that it proves global warming, nor would he say that the scientists are wrong because he remembers a summer when he was 5 that was much warmer than this.

Tom

 

My point wasn't that Extreme Weather July 2011 proves AGW - my point was that yes - scientifically speaking - July 2011 was very extreme and it's not your mind playing tricks on you.

I would be the last person to say that a single month of extreme weather in one country proves that global warming is occurring...

 

Fuzzy's post, quoted at the top, clearly states that he respects hard scientific evidence. July 2011 is one data point, which may or may not fit into a pattern. Fuzzy's point was that the human mind is hard wired to see patterns, and it does so sometimes even when there is no real pattern. This is why we see faces in trees and bunnies in the clouds.

Great Lakes' water levels are a good example of this sort of thing. Water levels in the Great Lakes go up and go down over time. I was going to write that they cycle over time, but that's just it: in the hundred years or so of recorded data there is no cycle. There are periods of high water and periods of low water, but no statistically valid pattern emerges from the data.There very well may be patterns, but our history of data is too short, or perhaps confounding factors hide the patterns. Still, there is no shortage of popular theories about the level of the lakes. People see patterns when they look hard enough.

Tom

 

Amen Tom. no matter how these posts start, they always boil down to the one consistent human failure; the struggle within ourselves to admit we have made a mistake. Many will defend the Prius to the extreme but only because that is the decision they have made and even another car that is only slightly less qualified is bashed beyond recognition to defend the Prius purchase decision.

Now we have Global Climate Change and our role in the process. one the one hand we have valid physical events; weather, temperature extremes, shifting precipitation patterns.

we have proven physical laws of nature; albedo, the absorption of heat and CO2 ability to retain heat, the breakdown of Methane, etc.

and we have measurements; we can estimate fairly accurately as to how much of these gases we have created, the change in CO2 levels, tearing down forests, etc.

so we all that one one side of the argument;

the other side has...well not quite sure what they have since i am not on that side.

so in the middle of all this is how much of this or that does it take to make a difference in this big big world we live in? we all know the above facts to be true. we do know they do retain heat and that here and there is getting warmer, but what we dont really know is to what degree our role is playing in the change and where this change will ultimately take us or whether the change will happen with or without us.

so i see it as one side filled with facts and the other side with "show me the money"

so we either wait for undeniable (is that possible?) proof of our role or start looking at reducing our role simply because its the right thing to do without providing the burden of proof.

 

LOL - I give up. I'm not trying to argue and say that fuzzy was wrong - just adding more facts to the fire!

 

I love these threads...

 

Gocha. I have done that on many occasions, where I added additional information or support, only to find myself in violent agreement. Language is tricky, doubly so in these written forums. Once the confusion begins, it is sometimes easier to just switch sides and argue the other point.



Tom

 

Not trying to split hairs, but you just made an assumption about one side after saying you don't really know what's on that side.

I'm all willing to look at the data and try to be sensible about helping the environment. I just wish the GW folks could also be sensible and realize that not everything they've been told is true or accurate.

 

How do you "not know " whats on the other side?
Unless your bias prevents you from comprehending anything contrary to your belief?
I think you are all brainwashed if you cant be bothered to consider a differing view.
I look at both sides then evaluate.
Because Im UNBIASED.
Im a life long Democrat.Volunteered for Jerry Brown Dukakis,Clinton,Gore , ,Kerry ,Clinton ,voted and donated for Obama.
This isnt always political.
Also Im a proud environmentalist.
Also likely to the left of most of you.

 

yeah mojo, why don't you state your position and offer alternative interpretation of known facts, not just the ones which suit your AGW conspiracy theory?

What is your different point of view? if you want me to consider your universe, you have to express it in logical and structural form. We will review them point by point w/o singing loony tunes, and while we may differ in many there are might be some things we agree upon. Let's discuss the facts like CO2 in ice cores, cloud formation, etc

The word of caution you would loose all credibility if you start with preconceived conspiracy theories.

truly yours