The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of Policy MAKES me SIGH
Policy MAKES me SIGH @policysigh

@bgprincess05 thank you for starting this discussion. It seems that you are very passionate about this topic, and it also seems from your comments that you are a logical, respectful person, one which I can have this discussion with and keep an open mind without anyone getting offended.

This is a topic I have really wanted to discuss. Since I haven’t seen you on this site before ill give you a little background. I am traditionally more Libertarian, Conservative leaning. But I really do care about the Earth. I think that all energy production should be as safe and clean as possible. I live in a more rural area with clean air because I am lucky, but whenever I go into the city I am so disgusted with the air quality. So just from personal experience, I do believe air quality is a real problem in some urban areas, but I am digressing. My point is that to let you know that I am not in complete opposition to the environmental movement in this country, but I am by nature a skeptic.

I do not deny that the climate indeed changes, I think we are going to get cooler and warmer on this Earth, just as we have throughout history. My indecision on the climate change debate comes from the human impact. I am undecided on this because of the scandals I’ve read about regarding the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). I’ve read about my scientists leaving the IPCC due to what they feel was political pressure to blame human impact on climate change.

Here’s a link to some of the statements from scientists that have resigned from the IPCC:

http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/08/21/un-scientists-who-have-turned-on-unipcc-man-made-climate-fears-a-climate-depot-flashback-report/

An here is a list of scientists that are against the theory that human impact on climate change is to blame for climate change: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

For me, I worry about the political pressure involved, and I worry that there are people looking to make a lot of money if Carbon Emissions are capped. And I please hope you will discuss this with me, as this is an issue I wish to become more educated on so that regardless of the outcome, I can make the right decision and support the side of the argument that is best for the planet and for society.

To explain my corruption argument in the above paragraph: Al Gore’s venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins has invested $6 million in a software company that stands to make billions of dollars from cap-and-trade regulation. Cap-and-trade is the legislation meant to limit carbon emissions. Cap and Trade failed nationally, but has been adopted by some states including California.

Side note: California governor Jerry Brown wants to use the funds generated from Cap and Trade for other purposes, you can read more about that HERE: http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/jerry-brown-wants-to-spend-california-cap-and-trade-money-high-speed-rail

Anyway back to the money: Hara Software (Gore’s investment firm invested in) sells software to help track greenhouse gas emissions. The market for such software is now about $2.5 billion dollars in size, and is expected to grow by a factor of ten to $25 billion if cap-and-trade legislation is enacted.

Here’s another article from a while back regarding Gore: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

Anyway, this is why I am a bit skeptical. I feel as though there are people looking to profit if carbon emissions are capped. And although the Cap-and-trade bill failed nationally, its working its way in on the state level. I don’t trust politicians, and so I fear that they are not really concerned about the environment and are more concerned about helping special interests profit so that they can get funds for the reelection campaigns. I definitely feel this happens on both sides of the aisle (see my article on campaign financing: http://www.volkalize.com/topic/who-is-purchasing-politicians-with-campaign-donations-koch-brothers-or-others/ )

But regarding climate change, I am really skeptical so maybe you can help me understand your point of view or debunk some of these concerns I’ve brought up.

Thanks, looking forward to this discussion!

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

@policysigh Thank you for your thoughtful reply! You are correct, I am new to this site as of yesterday. I am a registered Democrat, and I consider myself to be progressive. Regardless of my political affiliation, I am not naive enough to believe that any political party’s views or candidates are unaffected by pressure from external forces/donors. That being said, the issue of climate change is not a partisan issue because it is not an issue localized to the U.S. It is a global issue, with global consequences.

First, to address the validity of the science behind climate change, I would ask that you look at the summary of the report on climate change issued by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change in 2013. This is a collaboration of scientific reports that address the subject on an international scale:

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

As for the price of carbon, we are already paying it every day. You want to become more educated on the subject, so I ask you to please watch this video:

http://350.org/lets-start-building-the-way-forward/

I think you are right not to trust politicians, and I don’t believe that any political party has it “all figured out”. Statistically though, it is more liberal politicians who acknowledge the validity of and are willing to do what it takes to address the most pressing issue of our generation. And ultimately it is up to we the people, the people of this country, and the people of this world, to figure out who takes this subject seriously, to vote accordingly, and to take a stand against corporations who are profiting off of the destruction of our planet.

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

This is another great article on supporting the call for countries & companies to support a price on carbon:

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2014/05/05/supporting-a-price-on-carbon

Profile photo of Ross Bryan
Ross Bryan @ross-bryan-31

Regardless of my political leanings, I have no reason to doubt that climate change is fueled IN PART by major industrial activity on planet Earth (and that’s not to discount other more natural environmental factors, like climate cycles and volcanoes spewing out CO2, etc). The evidence at this point seems overwhelming, and I’m in no position to offer scientific contradictions. The time to act is now, but we should seek out a practical course of action that takes into account the energy needs of our population and economy. Fining dairy farmers because their cows fart won’t help; neither will other gimmicky forms of environmental authoritarianism.

With respect to caring for our environment, I’ve never seen the issue in terms of “liberal vs. conservative.” I just believe in doing what makes sense, and being on the right side of history. Environmentalism has long been a cause célèbre of the Left. That said, I think many – especially conservatives – are turned off to the idea because they’re used to seeing liberals in the media and academia parade around with evangelic fervor and lecture everyone around them on how they’re destroying the planet.

@bgprincess05 @policysigh @coffeeaddict @jlriggs57aol-com

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Follow the first link to a chart that scientists have made up on how the earth’s climate has changed may times in it’s history, long before man became industrialized.

http://scotese.com/climate.htm

This next link shows that we have a huge increase in both poles in just a years time.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Is our climate changing? Yes. Has it been changing since it’s creation? Yes. Does anyone one have any real proof that man is causing this change? No. Could we be playing a small part in it? Maybe. Would climate change stop if we stopped all of our industries and modified or eliminated everything man-made that the scientists say is causing this climate change? No, climate change is inevitable, it will happen with or without us.

Here is the response I gave on a similar topic that Julia Wooten started.

{Julia, is the climate changing? Yes. I would never say it isn’t. Does man’s impact on the earth play a part in it? Again, yes. To what extent, nobody knows. After having looked at both sides of the issue. I can’t find anything that shows that we can say man is greatly affecting the climate change, nor can I find anything that show we are having a minimum affect on it. In other words there were as many pro as there were con sites, but none that could tell our impact.

None of what I looked at came from the government, they have their own agenda for propagating this belief, carbon credits, etc.

Should we be good stewards of our planet? Yes. Should we run around like our hair is on fire because of something some government paid and funded scientists say is happening? No. Should we have this looked at by scientists that have no agenda to fulfill? Absolutely.

The plain and simple truth of it is that if these scientists that are working under grants or are in any way getting money from any government, what they say should be taken with a grain of salt, this includes colleges.

Until I can see a study done by an independent group and they are able to show to what degree human’s are having on the climate and what exactly is we need to fix. Just throwing out a blanket accusation that we need to change everything we are doing is not acceptable.

We need to be intelligent in our actions, a knee jerk reaction to anything is irrational and irresponsible.}

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

@jlriggs57aol-com

Well nice conspiracy theory, but not quite.

You can look up Hansen’s 2001 paper and see that the graph had already been adjusted way back then and looks EXACTLY like the current graph between 1880 and 2000.

And the topic of the entire paper was basically discussing all the additional corrections to the calculated temps.

Further, NOAA announced these changes two years before they implemented them, based on more accurate technology and scientific practices.

There is no cover up. Climate change is not a political issue, it’s a global issue based on scientific fact and certainty.

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

Honestly it comes down to common sense. CO2 admissions are directly responsible for the unprecedented melting of the polar ice caps. Less ice means less reflectivity of the suns energy and more absorption into the increased volume of water. The earth is warming, and will continue to do so. We don’t have time for more studies, we need to act. More solar, more renewable energy sources. Eliminate fossil fuel dependencies and create middle class jobs building new resources.

This whole debate comes down to Big Oil not wanting to lose their profits, and the Koch brothers, ALEC, the wealthy elite who directly benefit from our fossil fuel dependency – and pay members of government to flat out deny the reality of climate change. They could care less about science, it’s the money in their obscene bank accounts that matters.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Why is it that I get the feeling that you didn’t thoroughly read the information posted or the information on the links posted.

Climate

http://scotese.com/climate.htm

The Arctic Ice Cap.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/And-global-COOLING-Return-Arctic-ice-cap-grows-29-year.html

Please do not try to use common sense that can not be backed up by some kind of data or fact. It turns common sense into intuition, gut feeling, or just plain guessing. You gave your opinion, but without something to show why you have that opinion, that’s all it is.

This whole debate comes down to the government, they could care less about science, it’s the money in their obscene bank accounts that matters,and they will achieve their goal by creating hysteria in those who will believe whatever the government says, without researching it for themselves. Look for the upside-down hockeystick, it’s a good place to start.

All rulers are benevolent, they are only looking out for your best interest, they would never do anything to cheat me, and they always tell the truth. (If repeated long enough, you will believe it)

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

Please read this scientific article, particularly the section towards the end of it regarding the historical climate impact of significant amounts of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/energy-and-environment/climate-change—the-science/

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05

Lindsey, please copy and paste my @ when you leave a comment. I don’t know when you comment without it. Thanks.

I followed the link you posted and it took me to a site about Nuclear Power. It was the main page with a lot of tabs to click on and I didn’t know which one you were wanting me to read could you please repost the link to the information.

The one tab I did click on and read was about CO2 emissions but it must have been the wrong one because I didn’t see anything that told what effect these emissions were having on our climate. Sorry.

Looking forward to following your intended link.

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

@jlriggs57aol-com

James, I sincerely apologize. Here is the appropriate link.

Global Warming and Climate Change – The Science http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/Climate-Change—The-Science/#.U8C2Nu7hKNU.twitter

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

@jlriggs57aol-com

James, I apologize again. The link is not working directly.

If you click the link above, on the right hand side of the page under Energy & Environment is a section “Climate Change – The Science”. This is the article I am referring to. Sorry :)

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05

Lindsey, reading this I find that it contradicts itself, like this:

First it says,

“Global surface temperature change is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for two scenarios, be about 2ºC in one, and approach 4ºC in the other.
A sea level rise most likely to be 47-63 cm, due more to thermal expansion than retreating glaciers and Greenland ice cap.
Arctic summer sea ice disappearing in second half of century in all but the lowest scenario.” (this is being used to show man’s impact)

But then goes on to say,

“Relatively small increases in global temperature in the past have led to sea level rises of several metres. During parts of the previous interglacial period, when polar temperatures reached 3-5°C above today’s, global sea levels were higher than today’s by around 4-9 metres.”

According to one part of this report we are experiencing a rise in sea levels “due to man”, then further down it says that sea levels have been higher in the past, before man was even industrialized.

I could cut and paste all day but I’m not sure it would make any difference between you and me.

From this same link here is proof of what I have been saying all along.

“Relatively rapid global warming has occurred in the past. About 55 million years ago, at the end of the Paleocene, there was a sudden warming event in which temperatures rose by about 6º C globally and by 10-20º C at the poles. Carbon isotopic data show that this warming event (called by some the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM) was accompanied by a major release of 1500-2000 billion tonnes or more of carbon (5550-7400 billion tonnes or more of CO2) into the ocean and atmosphere. This injection of carbon may have come mainly from the breakdown of methane hydrates beneath the deep sea floor, perhaps triggered by volcanic activity superimposed on an underlying gradual global warming trend that peaked some 50 million years ago in the early Eocene. CO2 levels were already high at the time. It took the Earth’s climate around 100,000 years or more to recover, showing that a CO2 release of such magnitude may affect the Earth’s climate for that length of time.

Recent estimates suggest that at times between 5.2 and 2.6 million years ago (during the Pliocene), the carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere reached between 330 and 400 ppm. During those periods, global temperatures were 2-3°C higher than now, and sea levels were higher than now by 10-25 metres, implying that global ice volume was much less than today. There were large fluctuations in ice cover on Greenland and western Antarctica during the Pliocene, and during the warm intervals those areas were probably largely free of ice.”

Even according to the information on your link, there have been serious changes in the climate millions of years before man became industrialized. It also shows that the climate has been much warmer at times than it is right now. Does it say that there have been times when there was much less ice at our caps than there is now? Yes. Does it say that there have been times in the past that the ocean levels have been higher than they are now? Yes.

Does our climate change? Yes. Does it change on its own without any assistance from man? According to the information you have provided, yes. Is there anything in the information you provided that PROVES that man is having a severe impact on the climate? None that I could find. All I read were what they think, what they estimate (guess) it could be.

In the section called “Defining climate change prospects, effects and mitigation” where they talk about man’s possible impact look at how many times they use the terms “likely”, “most likely” and other similar phrases. It denotes that they don’t really know.

I will say what I said before, Is the climate changing? Yes, and it has constantly been changing for millions if not billions of years. Is there any proof that man is the cause of climate change? No, to the contrary, climate changes are a natural occurrence and will continue with or without mans influence. Does man have an obligation to protect and care for the Earth? Yes, but not by running around like our hair is on fire over something that has no evidence to show it is a problem.

In one of the links I posted earlier it shows that the ice caps are rapidly making a comeback just as they did in the past, but you seemed to want to ignore that for your own reasons.

If you want to believe in “Global Warming” then believe in it, but I have yet to see anything that proves global warming, just natural climate change as it has been for millions, upon millions of years. If there comes a time when there is real and true evidence, by non-government funded sources, I will be happy to jump on the bandwagon with you.

If you have the time or the inclination look up how much money, not only our government but the governments of the world stand to make, if they can convince enough people to follow along with global warming. What they would make in the selling of Carbon Credits is astronomical.

Profile photo of Lindsey Rachev
Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05

@jlriggs57aol-com

James,

Respectfully, I don’t think I could sway you regardless of what I post or say.

It is a fact that 95 to 97 percent of climate scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing the planet to warm.

I believe that when scientists know something, there’s a reason they know it. And if the environment which my children and grandchildren will inherit is, based on fact, threatened due to man made CO2 emissions, I am inclined to take action. Beyond politics, and beyond profit.

Solar energy. Wind energy. Put a cap on carbon. Stop drilling, fracking, sucking the earth’s finite resources dry. Renewable energy sources are the future that I believe we should give to our children. And I do hope, in time, you’ll come to agree.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05

Lindsey, you could not be more wrong, you could sway my opinion on this if you would show information, that does NOT come from government-funded groups, that shows real information that man is having a large impact on the climate.

So far what you have shown me is information that contradicts itself in some places and then shows that the climate changes on its own and has for millions, if not billions of years.

Another thing that shows me that you simply want to believe that man is impacting the climate, is that when I showed you proof that the site you sent me to did not prove what you wanted it to, you did not look at my proof and admit that the information was flawed.

I am not against green energies, solar, wind, etc., what I am against is the government misleading the people for their own financial gain.

I have done a lot of searching for information by any independent group or organization that shows that what you say is true, yet all I can find are those that get their funding directly or indirectly from the government.

I can be convinced, but only by a group who has nothing to gain by giving such information.

Here are some links to written media and videos. Written links are all from no n-government funded independent sources and they show their sources of information. The video’s are all from YouTube and the information on them have yet to be proven false.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/ipcc-scientists-caught-producing-false-data-to-push-global-warming.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/greenpeace-leader-admits-organization-put-out-fake-global-warming-data.html

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Lindsey, here is a link that will take you to a site where the founder of the weather channel debunks man’s impact on climate change, but does say that our climate is changing naturally. Not only does he debunk man’s impact he uses information gathered by an organization that does not take government or big business funding. This organization has nothing to gain or lose from their results, it is totally unbiased.

http://www.fixthisnation.com/conservative-breaking-news/founder-of-the-weather-channel-slams-global-warming/

Profile photo of jjvors
jjvors @jjvors

Interesting debate between @jlriggs57aol-com and Lindsey Rachev @bgprincess05 . The fact that 97% of scientists support the idea of anthropic global warming @AGW) shows that is an opinion and not a fact. Certainly the facts are suggestive: carbon dioxide is a global warming agent; the temperature has gone up about 1 degree Farenheit in the last century; concurrently, the carbon dioxide percentage has increased from .3% to .5%, almost all due to humans burning fossil fuels.

That’s the sum of the case for AGW, and when I first read about this 20 year years ago, I was worried. The first question I asked was, “Has the earth been this warm before?” Yes indeed. Every interglacial period for the past 400,000 years has had temperatures like we have now, and occasionally warmer. Recently (geologically) the middle age warming period surpassed the current temperatures.

I found the Vostok ice core samples which document the world temperature over the past 400,000 years, as well as CO2 and CH4 (methane) levels: http://cdn.antarcticglaciers.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation_to_2004.jpg

That pretty much convinced me mankind’s additions to CO2 and CH4 probably didn’t have much to do with the 1 degree increase. Perhaps a few tenths of a degree may be due to man’s actions.

Later, I looked at the temperature data statistically. There is a statistical test called ANOVA which can compare two sets of data and see if they are statistically significantly different. The 20th is not, compared to the other interglacial periods, or even this current one.

Another issue is the natural feedback loops. With greater warmth, there is greater cloud cover and more sunlight is reflected back to space. This is difficult to model programmatically.

In the policy area, we as citizens must ask, “What can we do individually and collectively and what will it cost and how much of an effect will it have?” We can certainly move to less carbon based energy sources, as we have in the US. We are actually meeting the Kyoto protocols, although we didn’t sign them, due to reduced energy consumption. We can be more efficient individually, corporately, and governmentally This movement toward efficiency will likely be sufficient to recover the tenths of a degree we have caused.

Carbon taxes impose great costs on the population; basically, they will reduce the national standard of living. Do we want to do that? What is the incremental decrease in carbon emissions? Is this the most effective method? I don’t believe so.

That should be enough facts for both James and Lindsey.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors

Well geez there Jjvors, it seems you have found another study that shows man heightened climate change from another government-funded source. This study comes from Dr. Ricky Rood from the University of Michigan.

I have seen dozens upon dozens of findings and reports from multiple sources of government-funded groups and organizations and they all say the same thing. I have also read as many from independent sources that say just the contrary.

If you want to show me something that sways me in your direction, show a non-government study that shows we are adding to climate change. I have shown some of the independent sources my information comes from.

What you have shown on your graph on the link you posted has shown me nothing.

The link I have posted below shows that the information taken from glaciers are unreliable.

Here are a few excerpts.

“I am a Professor at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection (CLOR) in Warsaw, Poland, a governmental institution, involved in environmental studies. CLOR has a “Special Liaison” relationship with the US National Council on Radiological Protection and Measurements (NCRP). In the past, for about ten years, CLOR closely cooperated with the US Environmental Protection Agency, in research on the influence of industry and nuclear explosions on pollution of the global environment and population. I published about 280 scientific papers, among them about 20 on climatic problems. I am the representative of Poland in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), and in 1980 – 1982 I was the chairman of this Committee.

For the past 40 years I was involved in glacier studies, using snow and ice as a matrix for reconstruction of history of man-made pollution of the global atmosphere. A part of these studies was related to the climatic issues. Ice core records of CO2 have been widely used as a proof that, due to man’s activity the current atmospheric level of CO2 is about 25% higher than in the pre-industrial period. These records became the basic input parameters in the models of the global carbon cycle and a cornerstone of the man-made climatic warming hypothesis. These records do not represent the atmospheric reality, as I will try to demonstrate in my statement.”

and

“The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as “fatally flawed”. This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.”

The link below will take you to the entire article written by Dr. Jaworowski. Why should I take his word over Dr. Rood’s, because Dr. Jaworowski has nothing to lose by giving his information, however, Dr. Rood could lose his funding if he doesn’t give the information the federal government wants him to give.

http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/

I look forward to any information you can give that does not come from a source that is government-funded. Who knows you may actually come up with something that might change my mind.

As it stands I have seen nothing to prove man is a cause or source of climate change. Until I do my opinion stands. It’s just a bunch of hogwash.

Profile photo of jjvors
jjvors @jjvors

Hi James L. Riggs

@jlriggs57aol-com
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

I’m sorry you misinterpreted my response as pro-AGW. It’s my argument against AGW, based upon the 420,000 years of the Vostok ice core sample. I had not heard that ice core samples are unreliable before; I will investigate your citations.

Best wishes,

jjvors

Profile photo of jjvors
jjvors @jjvors

Hi James L. Riggs

@jlriggs57aol-com
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

I read the paper on the issues with interpreting the CO2 content from ice core samples. Essentially, the CO2 samples are not the results of closed system–the CO2 under pressure migrates to clathrate crystals. Co2 then escapes when the core is removed from pressure. The result is an under measurement of CO2 percentages from pre-industrial world.

The paper cites shallow ice core samples which do not show this symptom from 1890, showing a CO2 measurement of 328 ppm, which does not fit the AGW thesis.

Thanks for informing us! This does not disturb my contention that the ice core samples demonstrate the current temperatures are not unusual over the last 2000 years or the last 420,000.

yours truly,

jjvors

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors

J, my apologies for misunderstanding what you posted, after rereading it I can clearly see that I failed to grasp your intentions.

I came across this article and found it quite interesting, here are a few excerpts with the link posted below.

“Antarctic sea ice is increasing – that’s old news – but now it’s also thicker than scientists thought, and that’s only adding to the confusion.”

And

“That’s what Jay Lehr has argued. Lehr is the science director for the Heartland Institute – a conservative think tank that has repeatedly spoken out against climate change science.

Lehr said, “Global warming activists like to claim global consequences resulting from carbon dioxide emissions, yet they conveniently forget to discuss the global nature of polar sea ice data. Instead, they only talk about Arctic sea ice, because that is the only polar region where sea ice is receding”

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/11/25/antarctic-sea-ice-mystery-thickens-literally/20998724/?ncid=webmail2

They are still puzzled by the Arctic ice receding, but if it’s “Global” warming, there is no way we would have such a huge increase of ice in the Antarctic.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

This is a great article from NASA about sea levels and climate change: http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

@jlriggs57aol-com
@bgprincess05
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict

It seems to suggest that things change with climate. And that it will forever change. Alarmists need to stop believing humans are so powerful that they can mess with the planet. We are not that powerful

Profile photo of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw

@twocents your comment is so uneducated i don’t know where to begin.

Profile photo of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw

I guess the rainforests just cut themselves down

Profile photo of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw

And the animals must be hunting themselves. Ridiculous

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw

Julia, he didn’t say that we couldn’t change our environment, like cutting down too many trees, or over hunting animals. I agree doing those things will change the environment for that given area. Anything depleted to a given extent will either work for or against a given area, whether it’s trees or any keystone animal.

On the fact that man is not having an impact on our climate is something I agree with Two Cents about. I still have yet to see one non-government funded study that shows we are having any impact at all.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@bgprincess05
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw
@jlriggs57aol-com

After reading this whole discussion its pretty clear that we are most people in here are not convinced that man is causing climate change and further believe that the public is being misled.

The science itself is not complete but science never is. There is smoking gun, on either side. You show me an article about Arctic ice increasing in that same article it also states that polar ice has decreased at twice the right in a similar time. I do not want to get boggled down in specifics because it is futile. We are still figuring it out, the research is still being done.

What is abundantly clear and we all agree on is that the climate it changing. What should be the focus is the rate of that change. The different periods of warming and cooling that have been cited here took place over hundreds of thousands of years. If climate scientists are to be believed than we are seeing some dramatic changes over a very short period of time. Factors like population growth, deforestation, over fishing, industrial farming, these all have impacts that directly change the environment just like all forms of oil exploration. Heres a map of how we think temperatures have fluctuated over time, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg

To finish up, there should be a carbon tax because we have to acknowledge that there is a cost to the earth when we take its fossil fuels and burn them. And enacting a carbon tax will help keep us diverse in energy use and help spur new methods of energy production. Oil as of today is at around $35 a barrel and we are producing 9 million a day, the most in U.S. history. This is possible because of innovative, market rattling technology that is giving us access to energy in places never thought possible 25 years ago.. New markets are constantly being created. You really don’t think the markets could adapt to a carbon tax?

My apologies for the length

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@alexmcdowell
@bgprincess05
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@juliaw

Alex, what scientists are saying that the climate is changing any faster than it ever did? Scientist that are paid through the government by grants? College scientists who are paid through government grants?

I have looked at many, and I mean many, independent studies on this subject and not one of them has said anything about the climate changing any faster now than it ever has in the past. However, I willing to see things differently if you can show an independent study that show some evidence that this is happening.

As I said before in my last post to Julia, “Julia, he didn’t say that we couldn’t change our environment, like cutting down too many trees, or over hunting animals. I agree doing those things will change the environment for that given area. Anything depleted to a given extent will either work for or against a given area, whether it’s trees or any keystone animal.”

We can change the “environment” in a localized area. Here again there are no independent studies that show these things can change the “climate” of the entire planet. Once again if you can show me an independent study that proves this I will be willing to change the way I think. I have looked. To my knowledge, no such study exists.

You said, “To finish up, there should be a carbon tax because we have to acknowledge that there is a cost to the earth when we take its fossil fuels and burn them.”

No, I don’t acknowledge that using fossil fuels is taking a toll on the earth. There is not one scrap of evidence to prove that statement.

I absolutely love your optimism when it comes to our government. You said, “And enacting a carbon tax will help keep us diverse in energy use and help spur new methods of energy production.”

Please don’t get drawn into that scam. It’s just another way the government is trying to control “WE THE PEOPLE”.

But as I have told Julia many times, if you want to believe the government is benevolent, that’s your choice.

As for this discussion, nothing has been shown to change my mind.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

James you cannot denounce any person that receives federal funds. Scientists get funded for there research one way or another. Just because a scientist is involved with a federally funded college does not mean they are getting pay checks to push an agenda. Take a look at the wikipedia page you posted of scientists disputing man made climate change and you will see a lot of them are working at schools that receive federal money. Why should i be any more likely to believe research put on by a think tank? Similarly, you keep saying independent study and then post article from dailymail and aol.

I will not try to convince you of man made climate change because I’m not a scientist and your mind seems to be made up. You honestly believe that our government, what ever that term is supposed to encompass, is trying to trick me into believing in climate change so that they can become rich. Thats their plan.

And if you don’t want to acknowledge that burning fossil fuels takes a toll on the earth, I’ll give that one to you. The term i should have used is environment. And yes burning fossil fuels, releases Co2, and the release of this chemical effects our environment. A carbon tax would put a price on that effect and create a whole new market to trade and use energy.

Stop referring to the government like its one big thing thats either benevolent or evil. It really doesn’t make sense. American people make up the American government.

Profile photo of jjvors
jjvors @jjvors

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

Thanks for your temperature chart! I hadn’t seen that before. The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is in there. The earth’s temperature has been higher, many times before–and it’s cooled off. Even over the last 10,000 years it’s been higher–and cooled off. Both the warming and the cooling are without human intervention.

True, the industrial revolution has increased CO2 over the past 120 years. That may have caused part of the ‘hockey stick’ that Michael Mann uses to support AGW. Note that the hockey stick is broken–there has been no warming for 20 years, about 18% of the time in question. Also note from your chart, that the average temperature decreased through the 19th century and was below normal for most of the 20th century. You could say the hockey stick is just making up for lost temperature over the past century.

Finally, from a statistical point of view, using analysis of variation, you cannot prove the industrial revolution caused a significant spike in temperature, compared to the previous 2000 or 200,000 years.

Keep those facts coming! It is based upon facts that our political discussion and policy must be based.

Best wishes,

jjvors

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@jjvors

Jjvors, I agree that the temperature on earth has has been much higher and much lower in that past due to a multitude of factors, none of which are caused by man. This does not prove anything about the type of climate change we are discussing. Again, the periods shown in that chart took place literally over the course of tens of thousands of years.

I will not sit here and tell you the industrial revolution is causing climate change. There is no one cause, this is not a simple who done it type of problem. As we increase as a species and use more resources, we cause more changes to our environment. Pumping Co2 into the atmosphere is one example of an activity we do that can alter our environment. The type of changes we are causing at this point are undeterminable, it is sciences best guess what digging up million year old fossil fuels and burning them will do to our weather patterns and how it will effect sea levels and our every day lives over the course of the next century or two, we just don’t know.

The one fact we do have, is that Co2 is increasing in our atmosphere. Here is an article from the Washington Post (take it for what it is, add some salt)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/carbon-dioxide-levels-are-at-their-highest-point-in-at-least-800000-years/

What it shows, and really the an the most important point, is that the rise in Co2 is not related to a natural cycle of the planet. Its us, the Homo sapiens sapiens, who have only been around 200,000 years, we are causing the rise in Co2. Correct me if I am wrong, but we can all agree that carbon dioxide levels are a delicate balance for any planet and having higher Co2 levels in the atmosphere is not a good thing for our planet. It may not be the worst thing ever, but it cannot be construed as a good thing. So lets put a price on carbon. Lets make it a commodity. Lets trade it, and let our capitalist system work its magic.

Profile photo of jjvors
jjvors @jjvors

Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

We can agree mankind has caused the CO2 to go up since the industrial revolution. We can agree more CO2 causes more heat to be retained in the atmosphere. What is less clear is the relationship between CO2 and the global temperature. You see, the CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, as high as 5% or over 10x the current levels. So there are mechanisms for extracting CO2 from our ecosystem. Typically, it gets absorbed by the oceans and turned into shells (limestone) or into the earth and turned into oil and coal.

One big volcanic eruption can generate as much CO2 as the entire industrial revolution! And yet, despite many eruptions such as these, the earth is not a heat trap like Venus.

When we formulate political policy, like pollution, we must agree on cause and effect. We agree SO2 and CO cause acid rain and smog and so have reduced our sulfur and CO output. That the CO2 increase has caused the 1 degree rise in temperature over the past 100 years is not that clear. Certainly, we want cleaner energy sources as much as possible. I am dubious of a carbon tax, as I am of taxes in general. Firstly, it transfers wealth from the private sector to the government. The private sector is what produces the technological advances in new energy sources. Secondly, any tax can only affect one country at a time, and this is a global issue. Finally, it does nothing for natural sources of CO2 and CH4 which produce more than half of the heat retaining gasses in the atmosphere.

So I think a single country carbon tax is ineffective and may be counter productive.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

I completely agree that earth has mechanisms to absorb the excess co2 over time. This planet has endured much harsher climates in its billions of years of existence than anything man could cause. But there have also been 6 major extinctions. We have to be smart with our environment. The I industrial revolution may or may not have had a tremendous effect on temperature the last century. But think about the world now where an industrial revolution has happened a 100 times over in nearly ever corner of the globe. Carbon dioxide is now at 400 parts per million in our atmosphere, it’s no going in any other diction than up. Let’s agree that having it stop at 400ppm instead of doubling in the next century is preferable. With that said, a carbon tax is a market friendly way of achieving that. I understand tax is an unfriendly word but are we really worried about our energy sector not being able to adapt? it was originally a republican idea and has been around for decades, it’s nothing new but how is the type to use it. Oil prices have dropped to unprecedented levels for the first time since the mid 80’s. I really have yet to hear a good reason against it. I hope everyone has a merry Christmas.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@alexmcdowell
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Alex, the first thing I notice on the last 5 posts is that my @ is not on the list, I don’t know if this was intentional or not, but whatever.

Secondly, yes I can denounce anyone who receives federal funding. Because they have to show what the government wants or they lose our tax dollars. Then they have to go get real jobs where they actually have to produce something. I will trust an organization the is privately funded way before I would trust a government funded one.

Third, the wikipedia link was posted by Policy, not me. I don’t use wikipedia because I find it unreliable, because anyone can change the information on the site.

The links I post are from credible, independent, non-government funded groups. For instance, if you read the information that is posted on the Daily Mail, you will find that they list their sources. They merely put the information in understandable terminology.

Four, my mind is never made up. I am information driven. If someone will show one piece of information that does not come from a government source I will rethink my position. I have said this many times. I have posted many links and videos from non-government funded sources, but yet no one on this discussion has looked at this information and refuted what was said. Give me good, solid, information to refute anything I have posted and I will look at it with an open mind.

Five, the common use of the term “government” in the United States is directly speaking about our politicians who are in Washington DC. I feel no need to change the common usage.

Lastly, if you choose to believe that the government is kind, caring, and benevolent, that’s up to you. You have the right to believe whatever you want. It’s a free country, for now. Personally, I believe our current administration is working hard to scam us with many different tactics, immigration, race, attempts at taking away Our 2nd Amendment, Climate Change, Carbon Credits, and the list goes on and on.

Anyway, have a great day.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@jlriggs57aol-com

James, I sincerely apologize for leaving you off the last posts. It was not at all intentional. I am a bit new at this; still getting the hang of things.

To your point about government funded research. It seems that you believe that members of our government came up with an agenda regarding climate change and then paid scientists to support that agenda with research. In actuality, their has been research into our climate for decades upon decades. Our government started taking legislative steps to protect the environment as early as the 60’s. Secondly, a lot of research is not fully funded by one source but receives funding from a mix of government grants and private organizations.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why you would only trust privately funded research. Its not as if private organizations don’t have an agenda. There is a lot of money at stake in the climate debate and denying man made climate change is most certainly financially beneficial for a great number of groups. You are not naive t think that all privately funded research has pure intentions? I don’t want to go on too much of a tangent but a famous quote that I cite frequently is, “its difficult to get someone to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it.” The point everyone has an agenda and yes everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but to completely denounce publicly funded research but at the same time ignore the fact the private research also has an agenda is hypocritical.

To get to my point about your sources. An example is on page two you posted two articles from Alex Jone’s website and then an article from yahoo written by a researcher at the heartland institute. Ignoring Alex Jones for a minute because the man has a conspiracy theory about everything under the sun, lets examine the heartland institute briefly. It is an organization that doesn’t receive any government funding, but instead is funded by private organizations, individuals and corporations. The heartland institute does not publish its donors so literally the funding could come from anyone. Why should I be more apt to trust that than any other research?

Finally, lets stop pretending the government is after us. In 8 years we have not seen our 2nd amendment rights disappear nor have we lost any other significant freedoms that i can think of. And lucky for you in about 2 years we have a completely new administration, what an amazing country! No, I don’t think Obama is trying to scam me with global warming and if he is, well its failing. What i do think is that burning fossil fuel has a negative impact on sustaining the type of environment us humans are comfortable living in. That is why I am advocating for a cap and trade system to be put in place. I am not a climate alarmist, I do not think we are on the brink of environmental apocalypse, but I do think cap and trade is a logical system that helps keep us responsible with the amount of carbon dioxide we emit. Co2 is at 400 parts per million, lets try to keep it that way.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@alexmcdowell
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Alex, you said, “Finally, lets stop pretending the government is after us. In 8 years we have not seen our 2nd amendment rights disappear nor have we lost any other significant freedoms that i can think of.”

In a sense you are right, we haven’t lost Our Second Amendment rights, that’s because organizations, that I am a member of, like the NRA, the NAGR, and The Second Amendment Foundation, have fought to maintain our rights. If it had not been for these groups and others like them, Our Second Amendment would have been gone during this administration. We are also very close to becoming just another socialist country. Unless we can get rid of obozocare we will be. This is not new, this has been going on since obama got into office. If you choose not to see it, that’s entirely up to you.

Let me end by asking you this, Do you believe that the bulk of the U.S. media is totally biased toward the liberal side? I will be interested in hearing your answer.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@jlriggs57aol-com
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

James, happy to answer your question but I must say we seem to have strayed from the original topic of the conversation. Perhaps we should agree to discuss some of the matters such as the second amendment in a separate discussion?

With that said, I have thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth and hope they continue.

Regarding the liberal bias of the media, I would say no I do not agree that the bulk of U.S. media is totally biased to the liberal side. I think, rather than biased toward a particular ideology the bulk of U.S. media is biased toward power. However, I will not sit and here and say that no liberal bias exists. In some mediums and markets it does. In the blogosphere for example, a medium where a lot of contributors are young their may be a liberal bias. Also, a lot of media outlets are headquartered in cities where the populations tend to be more liberal. On the flip side, a medium like AM radio is largely dominated by conservative thinkers, so again I think a lot has to do with what type of media it is.

Lets explore this issue further!

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@alexmcdowell
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Yes, I did get off of the discussion topic last post, but I did it for a reason. I can usually tell a persons politics by the way they post their comments. Yours were back and forth. I couldn’t tell if you were a democrat with right leanings or if you were a left leaning republican. There is always the possibility you are none of the above, but I was wondering which way your thinking went.

My comments and my question in my last post were to clear the air, so I would have a better understanding of the way you may think. Had I been able to read you better I would have posted differently, I had you pegged wrong, therefore my comments were not written in the proper perspective, which I apologize for. If we are in a discussion in the future I will be able to put them in a different tone. I knew there would be confusion about my last post, but it gave me much needed information that I didn’t have before. Sorry for my bit of deception, but it was necessary.

You are the only person I could not read within two posts.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@jlriggs57aol-com

Hope I continue to keep you guessing, James. Have a good one as well!

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

This discussion has really gotten interesting!

First, let me start by responding to @juliaw. As @Jlriggs57aol-com mentioned, I did not intend to imply that man CANNOT have an effect on the environment. But I do intend to imply that we cannot have an impact on the overall CLIMATE. We are sooo tiny in relation to this Earth. The entire world population could live inside just the state of Texas with enough living space to survive. That is mind boggling! Texas is a big state but it is tiny compared to the rest of the world. We do not have the ability to impact the Earth because there is simply not enough of us. Fly across the US and you will see that the most giant cities look like tiny specks in relation to the whole country. There is so much open space. Now compare that to Russia, China, Canada, South America, Africa, etc. The world is largely unpopulated. Do not believe the over populated, we have an impact myth.

Now, @alexmcdowell I agree with you that the science is not settled. But you said that we all agree that the climate is in fact changing, and I agree with that statement. Climate has always changed and will always change. It has changed at more rapid paces at some periods, and slower rates at other times. The ice ages, the extinction of dinosaurs, all of this happened at a more rapid pace than usual.

@AlexMcdowell I somewhat agree that one cannot 100% decipher whether scientists are biased or not because as you said, they all have to get funding from somewhere. However here is my opinion on that: government has an agenda, the agenda is to legislate in favor of special interests that fund their campaigns. The private sector, is motivated by money and success. So if science is privately funded, yes they may push their scientists to come up with information that supports a product they already have. But they may also conduct research to decide what product to come up with. I think understanding these two differences will help us decide whether privately funding research is biased or not. Why would private funders of research want biased research if they are to base their business model off of it? Remember, the private sector is out to make money, therefore they want to produce whatever is most effective in order to be successful and get rich.Government is not incentivized by success. They are incentivized by campaign funds to secure their position of power. They are lap dogs of the private sector. And now we come full circle, where basically no matter what, the private sector is the driving force behind everything. Which brings me to my final point. It’s all completely F’d.

The government is used by the private sector to harm competition, create monopolies, and basically make it impossible for anyone to succeed unless they have government officials in their pocket.

When it comes to climate change, there are a few people looking to prosper from legislation that would be implemented if the nation is convinced climate change is a serious threat. Look in to the Chicago Climate exchange, look in to Al Gore and his investments. Gore is heavily invested in climate technologies. And is making a killing off of it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/business/energy-environment/03gore.html?_r=0

There are so many examples of this, but as you can read in the article above, the government issued grants for Gore’s investments. He’s making a ton of money, all because the governement was willing to fund his investments.

Here is more on the Chicago Climate exchange:

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@twocents

Two Cents, you said clearly, what I was unable to. You hit it right on the head when you said.

“But I do intend to imply that we cannot have an impact on the overall CLIMATE. We are sooo tiny in relation to this Earth.”

Nicely said. Thank you for jumping in and putting it in the proper wording.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@jlriggs57aol-com
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

I do what I can Mr. Riggs!

Another point on this subject: The latest scientist to resign due to “McCarthy style abuse and threats” because he wouldn’t go along with the climate change caused by humans story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

Pretty sad… Ideology over reality it seems…

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

Two Cents, the site that the link takes you to is the icing on the cake. Thanks for posting it.

Nothing else has given the pro-man made climate change people to rethink their position, sadly even this guys story probably won’t either, but it’s still good information that tells a lot about the state of government influence on this subject.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

I have been meaning to get back to this discussion but found it difficult to organize my thinking. Two-cents I appreciate the article you posted because it shows just how difficult a position we are in when it comes to the issue.

To explain; the Daily Mail article is about a climate scientist who is leaving an organization because of backlash from his peers for ever joining the organization in the first place. That org. is called Global Warming Policy Foundation. It is a non profit that was created by a member of the Tory party which is the conservative party in the British government. The GWPF does not list any of donors, so we do not know who funds it. As listed on its website, it began because it, “is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated.” In other words it is the other side of the man-made climate debate.

With all that said, the outlet that article comes from is the Daily Mail, not the highest quality journalism and is part of the Rupert Murdoch’s media group. A quick search brings up articles such as this

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

This article is the exact flip side to the daily mail article. (not to say the Guardian is all that much better).

I agree that there probably is pressure from the scientific community to conform to man-made climate change theories. I also completely agree that many individuals have aligned themselves to profit from climate change legislation and have actively lobbied our government for those ends. What frustrating is that there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment in this discussion that there are individuals lobbying for policies that deny any man made climate change. The senates first order of business today was to pass Keystone pipeline legislation, some of the representatives who vote for bill receive campaign funds from companies that will profit from the keystone pipeline.

The point is, this is the way the system has been set up and its been like this for a long time. People lobby for their monetary interests and it sucks. We, as ordinary citizens, are stuck in the middle of that system and it is extremely difficult to figure out exactly whats going on.

That is why I have been arguing for a carbon tax. Quite simply, its a small step that doesn’t over react the threat of climate change but also doesn’t ignore it. With oil prices as low as they are, it would actually help to have a carbon tax that would bring the price back up. Some companies are having to defund projects and lay off workers because the low price of oil have made them un profitable. At the same time, a carbon tax helps us put a cap on emissions. We do not want to double the amount of co2 in our atmosphere in the next century, we have no idea what that will do to our climate and some projections are not at all good. So lets take a small step on the side of caution and put in place a carbon tax. Its not a conspiracy to make people rich, its sensible.

My apologies for such a long post.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

Meant to tag everyone in the above post.

@jlriggs57aol-com
@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

Alex, I followed the link you posted. Not only did I find what it said confusing, it also didn’t tell me much about who these scientists were, how they came to decide that man is having an impact on our climate, and if we are, to what extent we are impacting the climate. Are we, according to “scientists”, responsible for 40%, 60%, 80%, or 1.5%?

Then I read this:

“We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced.”

OK, I’m lost. Are the only ones that are reliable the ones that publish? What is the percentage of scientist in those fields that actually publish? 1%, 18%, 40%? Who do these experts get their funding from? Are the scientists that publish funded from a different source than the ones who don’t?

There are way too many variables for me to draw any kind of conclusion from the information.

You seem to be really hot on those carbon credits, which I have said is a scam from the very beginning, the same as global warming is just a scam. Here are a few links to sites that are from “free presses” which means nobody pulls their strings. I’m not too sure about the Telegraph, but it’s information is backed up by the Canada Free Press.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

http://canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

http://americanfreepress.net/?p=13240

Have to stick by what I’ve said all along. Man made climate change is a hoax and carbon credits are a money making scam.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

James, the first two articles were written in 2007 and if you read them, they do not say anything about a cap and trade plan. Instead they discuss how Al Gore has used his ties to government to get funding for his investments.

The third article comes from a publication that has peddled quite a lot of conspiracy theories. The author of the article, believes Sandy Hook was a conspiracy theory. It does not surprise me that he thinks global warming is a means for the U.N. to redistribute wealth towards the super elite,

Lasty, lets stop obesessing over Al Gore. He no longer works in government and is one man. It is possible to not like Al Gore and still believe that the possibility of man made climate change exists, like I do. He is trying to profit off global warming and he most likely is trying to lobby government to fund his projects, that doesn’t change the fact that man may be contributing to climate change.

As far as the article I posted, it was not meant to prove man made climate change exists. I posted the article because it was a direct response to the dailymail article twocents posted. It simply shows that their is more than one side to that story.

I think what the article I posted was saying was that most reliable publications are ones in peer reviewed journals.

My question to you is, how can you be 100% sure climate change is a hoax? And if there is even a 1% chance that climate change is real, a 1% chance that we could be doing serious harm to our earth that would have massively expensive consequences over the next century. Don’t you think its worth taking a small step like a carbon tax?

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

Again, forgot to include everyone. Hard to look smart when I keep doing that :-)

@jlriggs57aol-com
@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

Have a great day.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

Alex, as I have stated many times I absolutely believe that the climate is changing. It has changed hundreds, if not thousands of times since the earth was formed. What I have yet to see any proof at all is something that shows, without a doubt, that man is have an impact of any measurable size.

I am not obsessing over Al Gore. I do believe this is the first time I mentioned him. It matters very little when the articles were written, what he has done and is doing is still the truth. He has his own agenda for pushing global warming.

You said, “The third article comes from a publication that has peddled quite a lot of conspiracy theories. The author of the article, believes Sandy Hook was a conspiracy theory. It does not surprise me that he thinks global warming is a means for the U.N. to redistribute wealth towards the super elite,”

I would be very interested to read the information that you have read that shows about this publication and the author of this article. It should be interesting reading.

Also, show me anything, from a non-government funded source, and I don’t care which country’s government is funding it, that proves that we are impacting the entirety of the planet and if it is legitimate, I might start thinking differently.

To date I have yet to see such proof. So I will stick with what I have always said, “Is our climate changing? Yes. Is it always changing? Yes. Is there any proof that shows man is part of that change, for the entire planet? No.”

Have a good one.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@jlriggs57aol-com
@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31

James, the way my question should have been phrased is: do you think there is a 1% chance that man made climate change is real?

I apologize for the obsessed with Al Gore comment, you are correct that you have not brought him up previously. And i do agree, the man is attempting to profit from the climate change movement and he does have an agenda. That does not mean that man made climate change is real, it just means Al Gore is trying to profit from it, as are many others.

As for the article you posted, here is another written by the same journalist , John Friend, explaining why he left the American Free Press:

http://www.therealistreport.com/2014/08/john-friend-no-longer-writes-for.html

An excerpt from that article is: “Quite frankly, it was embarrassing for me to be writing critically about Sandy Hook and interviewing a variety of individuals who have thoroughly researched and debunked this alleged “shooting”, while AFP was uncritically accepting and supporting the official narrative.”

You make it very difficult to find unbiased research when you insist anyone working for a federally funded institution like Columbia University or any government organization like NASA or the U.N. cannot be trusted because of their agenda. And I will not find anyone that can prove for certain, research is still being done.

But again, can you say for certain that man made climate change is 100% a hoax. And if there is a even a 10% chance that humans are contributing to climate change in a negative way, do you think it is prudent to take some measures, however small, to limit our negative effect?

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

Alex, for whatever reason I didn’t get a notification that you had posted, not your fault, I stumbled on this accidentally.

I followed your link and it took me a minute to figure out exactly what was going on. You can correct me if I got it wrong. The gentleman who wrote this article was fired from the AFP. He posted the letter that told why he was fired, then he answered back with some reasons why he felt he was fired. If I got that right the rest will make sense, if not disregard.

According to what I read he says that the shooting in Sandy Hook and the bombing at the Boston Marathon were alleged. There was nothing alleged about either incident. Children died and were buried, families mourned their loss. Runners and bystanders were killed, and others were hospitalized in Boston. Where is there room for the word “alleged”.

He also went on to say that he and another gentleman were going to debunk the holocaust. Really? What about the thousands of eye witnesses, mostly German, that saw it happen? What about the thousands of Jewish bodies that were found, what about the ashes that were proven to be human in the ovens of the Nazi concentration camps? And they were going to debunk the holocaust?

Sorry, but if this guy worked for me I would have fired him too. He sounds like some kind of nut job.

Moving on. You said, “……….do you think it is prudent to take some measures, however small, to limit our negative effect?”

I thought we already had taken some measure to limit our negative effect. That’s why we put catalytic converters on cars, we stopped using leaded gas, we made thousands upon thousand of our power plants and factories to put scrubbers in their stacks. We made just as many thousands of factories and businesses stop letting their waste go into lakes, rivers, and streams. They now must process and regulate what they put into the land, air, and water. I thought we had done a good job of keeping these folks in line, but maybe I’m wrong.

If we are doing 1% damage, that means nature is doing 99%, so we have our taxes jacket through the roof and the government throws billions upon billions of our money at this, then after decades of stealing our money, our 1% gets eliminated. With nature doing 99% of the changing, it’s still going to change, irregardless.

I can’t speak for other countries but it seems to me we have already take care of our part, what they do is their business.

Given the present situation on information, I will stand where I have been.

Have a great day.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@twocents
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell

Alex, I found this after posting my last comment. After hearing about it, I looked it up and found it on multiple sites. Here are a few excerpts.

“Dr. Terry Hughes, in an interview with The College Fix, said researchers want to keep federal funding for climate change alive, and politicians want to earn environmentalist votes, and both predict global pandemonium to that end.”

“Too many (the majority) of climate research scientists are quite willing to prostitute their science by giving these politicians what they want,” he said.

“Hughes – who worked for 35 years at the Department of Earth Sciences and the Climate Change Institute at the University of Maine – said climate cycles overlap with election cycles, which helps politicians “get electoral visibility by pounding the panic drums.”

And.

“You will never read or hear any of this from the scientific and political establishments,” he said. “I’m now retired, so I have no scientific career to protect by spreading lies.”

http://www.educationviews.org/retired-professor-turns-whistleblower-climatechange/

He is not saying that global climate change is not happening. The point here is there really are political agendas when it comes to this topic and that scientists are saying what the politicians want them to say.

Have a good one.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

It looks as though Climate Change is ramping up to be… “one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time.”

@jlriggs57aol-com
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@grand-vizier

This just in: “The fiddling with temperature data is the biggest science scandal ever! New data shows that the “vanishing” of polar ice is not the result of runaway global warming.” According to Telegraph.

You can read the full article HERE: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

But essentially, it tells how the numbers used to show how the earth was “Warming” were actually “adjusted.” Uh oh.

Three groups are specifically called out for altering the numbers: First, the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC).

Ouch.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@grand-vizier
@twocents

The interesting thing here is that the groups called out for fudging their data are all government funded. Who would have ever thought that government funded groups would do anything like this. I, for one, am shocked and dismayed.

Thanks for the update Two Cents.

Profile photo of Alex McDowell
Alex McDowell @alexmcdowell

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@grand-vizier
@twocents

Two cents that was an interesting article, but the author is not exactly unbiased himself. He wrote a book about the climate change hoax and is one of Britain’s leading climate skeptics (according to wikipedia). The point is, he has a personal interest in finding instances where data was incorrect and generating stories like these. But please, the title of the article suggests that this temperature data “fiddling” is the biggest scientific scandal ever? That seem’s just a tad bit alarmist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Above is an article posted in the NY times about a climate skeptic who was being paid off by private companies. While I think the Times was all to happy to write this article, it does show that every scientist is susceptible to mistakes or worse, corruption.

One thing I have learned from this discussion and doing some side research is that today we are able to study our planet and climate ever widening variety of ways and this is giving us an enormous amount of data. The article twocents posted was about temperature readings from the 1940’s, clearly the data is not the most accurate.

How our climate is changing will become more and more evident with each passing year. We can debate the trends scientist are predicting and point to counter evidence or create different theories, but in the end the data is what will prove who was correct. No amount of government funding could create that scale of a hoax, unless we just want to start distrusting all other scientific research. Its not easy correlating thousands of peer reviewed articles with each other across multiple fields, that is quite the con.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

jlriggs57@aol-com
bgprincess05Please google “the myth of the 97%”WSJ article. Also google “1970’s articles on the coming ice age”
Nearly everything you read about “Climate Change” is nonsense.
Mark Twain said”those who don’t read newspapers are uninformed,those who do are misinformed!”
“common sense”should tell you the vast majority of gasses in the atmosphere is water vapor. AKA moisture,clouds and so forth.(over 90%)
Water vapor is by far more influential the the minute percentage made up of CO2 and until Mr.Gore explains how to control evaporation,rain and other weather events its not going to change,further a single volcanic eruption puts more CO2 and other polutants into the atmospher than all the man made things put together.

In California we are having water shortages. The” Geniuses” in charge of the water waste nearly 50% of the available water trying (unsuccessfully) to save the “Smelt” a small useless fish.
We are told to let the lawns and landscape die to conserve the water but since plants consume CO2 and generate oxygen how does that help with the idea of reducing CO2 in order to “save the planet?”
Just saying!

Profile photo of Coffee Addict
Coffee Addict @coffeeaddict

@grand-vizier
@jlriggs57@aol-com
@bgprincess05
@Juliaw
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@twocents
@policysigh

Man is very obsessed with themselves. I believe that man is so obsessed with themselves that they believe their actions are capable of having an impact on the Earth, our atmosphere, and mother nature.

The truth of the matter is that we are nothing. We are tiny. We barely take up any space on this Earth. To think that we are capable of having an impact is ridiculous.

As you mentioned @Grand-Vizier more C02 is released into the atmosphere during a single volcanic eruption than all man made CO2 emissions put together. To think that we have more power than mother nature and the natural processes of this Earth is utter stupidity.

Here is a great summary of all the climate change lies, I think everyone should read it. The “TRUTHS” global climate change alarmists put out there are far from TRUTH: http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2015/02/09/top-10-global-warming-lies-that-may-shock-you/2/

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@grand-vizier
@twocents
@Juliaw

Good info guys. Where are our death and destruction true believers at??

I find it truly interesting that once information is given that shows that global warming isn’t real that, not only do the gloom and doomers not comment, but also not one can come forward and say that there is so much information being posted here that they have to admit that maybe they were wrong and will concede the point.

What do you guys think? Did we post enough to get them to abandon the cause? Will we see any information to nullify our information? Will we ever hear from them again?

Maybe the sky isn’t falling.

Profile photo of Peter T. Burke
Peter T. Burke @peter-t-burke

@jlriggs57aol-com

@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@grand-vizier
@twocents
@Juliaw

James,
I read some of these threads to see if anyone is ever successful in their attempts to convince another to change their position on something by presenting them with truthful evidence.

So far it seems that people believe what they will believe for as long as they choose to believe it regardless of evidence to the contrary.

You asked if enough had been posted to make true believers change their positions – let me know if you actually get a bearing on that flight of pigs.

I was finishing up college in the early 70s and I still recall the discussions about the coming Ice Age and the inevitable extinction of man. Those were reputable scientists (government funded of course) also.

Please do let me know if you ever get a true believer to change even one of their unassailable truths.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@peter-t-burke
@bgprincess05
@policysigh
@coffeeaddict
@ross-bryan-31
@alexmcdowell
@grand-vizier
@twocents
@Juliaw

Pete, without fail I will let you know if any miracles happen. I don’t think anyone of them will change their minds as long as all they read is the information that comes from government funded sources.

We all know that the government is benevolent, therefore anything they or one of their puppets say has got to be absolute truth.

Have a good one.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS