Fossil Fuel Survialist Guide for the Sane

Pacowy wrote:

dennis8483 wrote: What is the worst case scenario for the future if we take actions now?

The worst case scenario is that real people, especially the poor, are made far worse off by changes to the economy made in the name of a "better future", with scare tactics used in place of any type of credible cost-benefit analysis to guide public policy.
Mike

That I could agree with. I should have been more clear. Forcing people to change to an energy source that is not ready for the market is NOT a good idea. Over subsidizing any energy source is NOT a good idea. Scare tactics are NOT a good idea. As with ALL fields of science, taking actions should involve two things (1) Promoting and providing funding for research and (2) Developing and advancing technology. With those two things taking place, if and when a better a source is found, it will naturally be adopted by the public and subsidies wont be necessary.

As for temperature data, increases in biodiversity, and what not... I call total BS. Where is the data you claim to be true? Provide an unbiased scholarly research source that has been independently verified and replicated and I would be more inclined. Saying that you saw a regression of blah blah blah is Fox News style garbage. I'm sure you have an advanced degree and knowledge base of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, oceanography, meteorolgy, glaciology, and climatology to understand data and findings and the interconnections of how incredibly complex systems work, rather than just observing a random figure and assume you know all the details. Have things changed unexpectedly? Somewhat, due to the ocean absorbing carbon at a greater rate than expected. Is it still happening? Absolutely. Changing climate is a 100% natural phenomena, it is the rate of change that is causing alarm. Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening.

dennis8483 wrote:Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening

Presumably you have all those advanced degrees to presume to make that statement after telling us how complicated it is. What is one to believe when the spokesmen for all this turn out to be pseudo scientists who fake figures and turn a cooling trend into a warming trend?

franco b wrote:

dennis8483 wrote:Anthropogenic Climate Change is happening

Presumably you have all those advanced degrees to presume to make that statement after telling us how complicated it is. What is one to believe when the spokesmen for all this turn out to be pseudo scientists who fake figures and turn a cooling trend into a warming trend?

Are their bad scientists that are manipulated by fame, money, blackmail, etc. Absolutely. There are bad everything. Bad cops, bad teachers, bad politicians, bad priests. But a majority are good. The difference is that science is self correcting by nature. If some one screws up, they are outed. If they lie, they are eventually caught and outed. This is the one thing that separates science from everything else. 97% of all climate scientists agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is occurring. It doesnt help that the media doesnt know how to report science, and that average joe catches headlines which skew the facts.

There is no hard evidence for a cooling trend over an extended time period in the modern climate. None. Here's an example of the media screwing this up. Forbes Magazine. Great at writing about economy. Writer Peter Ferrara wrote an article titled "Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling". The article goes on to describe that there is a cooling trend, not a warming trend. He tries to include a few fringe examples of hearsay because he attended a conference where he presented.... a talk on the high cost energy to the economy. He goes on to describe the Maunder Minimum, but his depiction of the affect on the Little Ice Age is off by about 300 years . He describes the Year Without a Summer (1815), blaming sunspot cycles. Except the Year Without a Summer is directly attributed to the volcanic eruption of Mt. Tambora. According the claims of Ferrara, we should have a little ice age every 10-11 years, due to the sunspot cycle that typically occurs. Can sunspots affect the energy budget incoming to Earth? Yes. Can it be measured? Yes. Is it already being accounted for? Yes. The bottom line is that people like Ferrara skew and cherry pick facts to support their personal viewpoints. Of all of his credentials, there is one thing he doesnt have. Science. He is an economist, not a scientist. Mainstream media, both conservative and liberal, screw up science. Want to know the truth? Read peer reviewed, replicated, reputable, scholarly scientific publications.

When you were in college, did you study statistics ? If so, you know that a tend is
a perceived line through a scattering of data points that indicates an upward or
downward expectation. The trend does not expose the cause of the movement,
just the direction.
As a student of Geology, you know that a trend in Geology is studied in the millions
of years time frame. As a student of Physics, you know that a tend is measured in abstract
circular mathematics that only get close to describing what you think you want to see.
In Biology you can strip and tear at the building blocks of life, but how they truly interact is
more of a mystery the deeper you get. Any trend in Biology is tilted toward the more complex.
As a student of Meteorology, you must have studied that there is a big ass ball in the sky known as
the Sun. The Earth is like a dog on a leash. Where the Sun goes, we go. It trends up and it trends down.
Our leash is kind of like a spring. When the Sun pulls, we slow down, but keep going in the same direction
for a while before moving in the pulled direction. People studied this for hundreds of years and have some
sense of how the Sun cycles. How it affects the Earth is not as well know or understood.

Here is where the problem starts. If your an Earth Science professor looking for grant money, you can't
tell them you are going to study the Sun. Everyone has been there and done that. You need to start digging
in the mud, boring ice, boring trees, plotting data and perceiving trends. The perceiving of trends is the key.
You have to get the trend upward and make the data as scattered and complex as possible. This allows many
of your fellow academic chums to help. The trend up makes sure that next years grant money is secure and
the complexity is something politicians love because the answer will never show up during their election cycle.

Well, I think I've rambled myself into a hole here, but you get the idea. If you can't dazzle them with fact, baffle
them with bullshit. Keep and eye on that big ass ball in the sky, and don't be arrogant enough to think that you
or our collective behavior makes one bit of difference to the Earth. It makes a difference to you neighbor so don't
be a slob, but the Earth could give a *censored* less.

LOL! This has been an interesting read! Sorry Dennis, you are definitely a learned individual, but you have met your match in a simple coal forum. Claiming superior intellect and the moral high ground is difficult around here. I have met extremely intelligent and educated individuals (from various Ivy League institutions) that did not have the ambition nor the inclination to do anything but live in a shattered wreck of an old house in Downeast Maine and drink themselves stupid and play with themselves. High IQ's of the sort you claim to have easily convince themselves that they have all the answers and the common man just can't comprehend the complexity around them. This leads to Progressives and their answers for us all. For all your glib writing, you offered no proof, and made the mistake of using the 97% number which we know to be false. It is just a talking point by the left. The climate has changed every year that I can remember, I let you know about next winter when it is happening. Anything else is like reading the Old Farmers Almanac.

Kevin

I find it funny that some readily accept only what they want when it comes to the science and data. How many of you had vaccinations? After all, its only a statistical representation that claims they work. There is no such thing as 100% when it comes to a majority of vaccinations. Why trust what scientists have claimed is true? Dont take any medications for that matter. Its only statistics that claims they have a positive benefit. Why follow fish and game harvest limits? Its only statistics that describes the population. Why agree with scientific principles such as the gravity? After all, scientists don't know what causes gravity, all they know is what it does. My point is that because you choose not to believe in global warming, it shows the big difference between us. I understand that science isnt a belief system. There is nothing to believe in. I have seen and read the evidence. It has been replicated time and time again. I accept the evidence because it is statistically proven to be significant. The extent may not be known until several generations in the future, or we may know it within a decade or two. Only time will tell.

dennis8483 wrote:I find it funny that some readily accept only what they want when it comes to the science and data. How many of you had vaccinations? After all, its only a statistical representation that claims they work. There is no such thing as 100% when it comes to a majority of vaccinations. Why trust what scientists have claimed is true? Dont take any medications for that matter. Its only statistics that claims they have a positive benefit. Why follow fish and game harvest limits? Its only statistics that describes the population. Why agree with scientific principles such as the gravity? After all, scientists don't know what causes gravity, all they know is what it does. My point is that because you choose not to believe in global warming, it shows the big difference between us. I understand that science isnt a belief system. There is nothing to believe in. I have seen and read the evidence. It has been replicated time and time again. I accept the evidence because it is statistically proven to be significant. The extent may not be known until several generations in the future, or we may know it within a decade or two. Only time will tell.

What evidence? Show us some. Not failed models, not reports based on fraud as has been proven time and again.
Where's the real evidence?
We'll wait here.

wsherrick wrote:

dennis8483 wrote:I find it funny that some readily accept only what they want when it comes to the science and data. How many of you had vaccinations? After all, its only a statistical representation that claims they work. There is no such thing as 100% when it comes to a majority of vaccinations. Why trust what scientists have claimed is true? Dont take any medications for that matter. Its only statistics that claims they have a positive benefit. Why follow fish and game harvest limits? Its only statistics that describes the population. Why agree with scientific principles such as the gravity? After all, scientists don't know what causes gravity, all they know is what it does. My point is that because you choose not to believe in global warming, it shows the big difference between us. I understand that science isnt a belief system. There is nothing to believe in. I have seen and read the evidence. It has been replicated time and time again. I accept the evidence because it is statistically proven to be significant. The extent may not be known until several generations in the future, or we may know it within a decade or two. Only time will tell.

What evidence? Show us some. Not failed models, not reports based on fraud as has been proven time and again.
Where's the real evidence?
We'll wait here.

Dont read much outside of the forum? A simple google scholar search will provide thousands of government agency research (NOAA, NASA, EPA, and countless other agencies from other countries) and collegiate research. Try searching for links and pdfs about ocean acidification, biodiversity, vector-borne disease rates, etc. Every prediction made 10, 20, and even 30 years ago has been shown to show significant changes. The research done by government and collegiate institutions doesnt even focus on CO2 emissions any more. New research accepts the fact that humans are increasing CO2 concentrations, and that CO2 affects climate. New research now focuses on new predictions based on current changes. The majority of all scientists and nearly 100% of climatologists accept the current data and are now moving forward to focus on mitigation and other non-predicted consequences. With the majority of the scientific community accepting the data, it is you that are making the claim. The claim maker has the responsibility of providing evidence. Show me, find unbiased, peer reviewed, and replicated evidence.

Weel you mus be right cause I be jus a dumb ole mountain boy from de Souf. Don't have too much book larnin liken you does.
Soes I dun guess weze gonna see about dat now ain't we.

Tiny Tim the original Global Warming hysteric. He is to be taken as seriously as the rest of the kooks in this club of the haters of Humanity.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DEoOdcYKbc [/youtube]

I'm quite sure that many of the studies you quote can be found here in a long list of "peer reviewed" works that have been proven to be unequivocal frauds. They are full of faked, manipulated data to support the hoax of Anthropogenic ( darn that's a big ole 50 cent college word for a bumpkin like me) Global Warming.
I'm just getting started.

http://notrickszone.com/climate-scandals/

Oh, here's some more icing on the Climate Fraud Cake.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-20 ... nsors.html

My goodness, here are two papers revealing just how corrupt and politically motivated the IPCC is. I guess you will dismiss this paltry mountain of evidence of just how unreliable and fraudulent these clowns are. And we have yet to get into WHY they are so insistent in their continuing deception. It's getting late. We'll get into the WHY of it later as we will also show the ACTUAL UNCORRUPTED DATA which not only blows this crap out of the water but shows what is observed is nothing more than normal cycles.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/26/two-scathin ... ore-108249

Here are the top ten excuses that the Global Warming Hysterics have tried to cover their asses with since none of their predictions have occurred.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/14/climate-de ... ntreal-pr/

Oops. The actual satellite data shows NO WARMING for almost two decades. I guess the Atmosphere didn't hear the news.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/global-tem ... -8-months/

I'm glad to see that dennis8483 agrees that changes shouldn't be forced if the alternatives are not viable in the marketplace.

Beyond that, it seems like he's so attached to his conclusion that he wants to stifle any discussion that could wind up changing it. Sorry, but that's not science.

The issues I Iisted are part of a larger set of concerns I have about the data and analyses upon which the alarmist positions are premised. And yes, dennis8483, I have plenty of qualifications for raising such concerns, and no, they are not based on things I heard in the media.

For the record, I don't agree with the premise that people without advanced degrees can't raise legitimate questions or doubts. It took a child to point out that the emperor had no clothes, when 100% of the remaining population said otherwise. If the studies haven't adequately addressed issues that are readily apparent to "outsiders", they do not provide a reliable basis for policy changes. Likewise, if the models underlying the alarmist forecasts produce results that are plainly inconsistent with the conditions that actually occur, they fail validation, and are entitled to no weight until such time as they are made more accurate.

Beginning in the 1970's, we had about 3 decades' worth of air quality regulation that enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, largely as a result of efforts to ensure an element of economic rationality and soundness in restrictions that were introduced. IMO that more recently has been lost, as conformity with ideology and pre-formed conclusions seems to have replaced transparency and fact-based inquiry. Sorry, but I'm not willing to drink that Kool-Aid.

Mike

Pacowy wrote:I'm glad to see that dennis8483 agrees that changes shouldn't be forced if the alternatives are not viable in the marketplace.

Beyond that, it seems like he's so attached to his conclusion that he wants to stifle any discussion that could wind up changing it. Sorry, but that's not science.

The issues I Iisted are part of a larger set of concerns I have about the data and analyses upon which the alarmist positions are premised. And yes, dennis8483, I have plenty of qualifications for raising such concerns, and no, they are not based on things I heard in the media.

For the record, I don't agree with the premise that people without advanced degrees can't raise legitimate questions or doubts. It took a child to point out that the emperor had no clothes, when 100% of the remaining population said otherwise. If the studies haven't adequately addressed issues that are readily apparent to "outsiders", they do not provide a reliable basis for policy changes. Likewise, if the models underlying the alarmist forecasts produce results that are plainly inconsistent with the conditions that actually occur, they fail validation, and are entitled to no weight until such time as they are made more accurate.

Beginning in the 1970's, we had about 3 decades' worth of air quality regulation that enjoyed widespread bipartisan support, largely as a result of efforts to ensure an element of economic rationality and soundness in restrictions that were introduced. IMO that more recently has been lost, as conformity with ideology and pre-formed conclusions seems to have replaced transparency and fact-based inquiry. Sorry, but I'm not willing to drink that Kool-Aid.

Mike

Of course he, along with all of the others who adhere to this; want to stifle discussion and dissent. They wish this because they have no actual measurable evidence that it is happening or that current trends in the Climate are anomalous from any other period in observable history. It is a religion to them which is a foundational part of a total World View that views Mankind as an enemy of the Planet. Humanity must be controlled, liberties constrained and populations culled. It is all part of a deep rooted hatred that has no rational basis. According to them, if you don't accept their fraud you should be eliminated as is shown by the link below. Sounds kind of like a Medieval Inquisition to me. Do rational people say such things? I think not.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/professor_ ... niers.html

And here we are beginning to reap the results created by these insane environmental fanatics. If they are allowed to continue their agenda things will only get worse.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-prices- ... 9274.story

As far as the ludicrous claim that, "100% of Climate Scientists accept human caused climate change," goes here is a short list of scientists who reject it.
Of course they are all taking money from Exxon right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_o ... al_warming

And, you won't see many of the "glo-bull warming believers" willing to sit in the dark, be cold all winter, or give up their cars.

They never can come up with workable solutions other than to say, 'the government should solve it." Too lost in their little worlds to even answer a simple question of, when did a government ever really solve anything ?

Paul