New Ice Age begins

[editec]

You know its odd, but we can probably expect wild swings in weather behaviors whether the globe is getting warmer OR colder.

But we'll know that you are right Mdn2000, IF we see a persistent decline in overall global temperatures over time.

Right now, most of the experts seem to think the global is warming up.

As I am not an expert in this field, I sort of leave it to them to tell me what's happening.

editec, the only way the temperatures are going up is if they cherry pick their data such as last summer when they chose to use a single weather report from a airport to get their "record" temperature reading of 105 degrees. Or the continuing rewrite of historical data sets that GISS and HADCRU have been caught doing. Much less the New Zealand group that has been caught red handed and now the New Zealand government no longer uses their own official data sets as they are fraudulent.

On the other hand...we have now seen two very hard winters in a row. Last years was devestating both in the northern and southern hemispheres, and this years has certainly started off with a bang as evidenced by the Europe wide problems with early snow.

Read the foreign newspapers to get a better idea of just how bad the winter is over there right now. It will be eye opening.

Global warming could, I am informed, actually cause Europe and North America to experience another Ice Age.

If the amount of fresh water coming into the North Atlantic screws up the GULF STREAM then that might happen.

This is sort of why I am inclined to think we'd be better all describing what is happening as GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Because in complex interactive systems changes can have dramatic and somewhat unexpected (read counter intuitive) outcomes.

As to the charge that scientists world-wide are collectively "cooking the books"?

Well I'm dubious of that charge.

I don't discount the possibility that scientific consensus might have arrived at an incorrect conclusion, of course.

Science does do that since understanding is a constantly moving target.

 

[mdn2000]

As new data emerges from new findings and better technology which allows us to attain more accurate information over decades, you'd have to be an idiot, in any situation, to not adjust your opinions and views in light of new evidence. To think someone is a sheep because simply, from the outside, they appear to be going 'to and fro' is a very ignorant of looking at things, because you are not appreciating the evolution of information that spawns such shifts in views, in my opinion anyway. To stick to your guns simply to stick to your guns, even as new information suggests that your position might be outdated, is ignorant and stubborn.

What new evidence do you speak of praytell? The evidence that the AGW alarmists have been falsifying their data for almost 5 years and manipulating it before that? That's new info. Or how about the info that the climate fraud seems to be run by big oil and companies like Goldman Sachs who stand to make trillions off of a theory that to date has no empirical data to back it up? Or the well known fact that not a single computer model, of which the alarmists are so proud, can recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago?

Please, by all means let us know what new information is out there that will actually be relevent to the discussion.

I was speaking more in terms of generalities, that one must remain flexible in light of new information, experiences, etc... That, remaining steadfast seems to be considered virtuous in politics, even when it is not prudent. Since climate change has become political, I would consider what I said relevant to this discussion.

I just have one question: what motive would people have to be alarmist about climate change? Why would they feign this? It would seem that oil companies and many corporations don't want change because their success is built on a stable foundation, one built on an oil-fueled economy. To change the fundamental energy structure of our economy would restructure everything. That kind of systemic change is why no one wants to confront global warming, and people warp their thinking to convince themselver it is not true so they can continue to make money. The evidence is clear. global warming is happening, yet it is too much of a threat to businesses and those who hold stake in the infrastructure of the current economy. Greed will warp minds.

What motive, you new here, how about money and power.

Oil Companies provide the basic raw materials that the Green Energy industry needs to build Green Energy, from the basic industries, to smelting the metals, to mining for silica, to providing the energy to melt sand into glass at over 2500 degrees. Its a win-win for Oil Companies, not only that Green Energy is always built with 100 % backup as in for every watt of electricity they claim they will produce a fossil plant is built to provide the energy.

I guess you missed the Solar goes diesel thread which speaks of the corruption, providing cheap electricity from diesel and charging at the higher rate of Green Energy.

So in California we are paying more for water, electricity, and gasoline, as well as food due to the cost of energy, GE gets to build thousands of electrical generators that sit behind thousands of idle turbines. GE is paid, the banks financed the project, all guaranteed a profit by government laws and mandates.

What fundamental change do you speak of in energy structure. Do you mean we know must adopt to dirty intermittent power sources located at extreme distances from the market with the government making rules so this power can be bought and sold by speculators on Wall Street further making us indentured to banks and investment firms.

There is no evidence of global warming, only a multi-billion dollar theory, more money spent on one theory than any other theory in history.

Yes, the only thing settled is it will take more than logic to change the course. California and Oregon are bankrupt, green energy is the cause, housing is the scapegoat.

How about if I just come to your house and do your yard work, fix your car, I am broke and would like a little money to feed my kids, so if you would be so kind to allow me just to work for maybe I could have a little electricity to keep the milk cold, ice cubes is a luxury I can no longer afford the electricity to freeze.

So let me know how exactly I can work for you so you can be rich. You have bled me dry.

 

[westwall]

As new data emerges from new findings and better technology which allows us to attain more accurate information over decades, you'd have to be an idiot, in any situation, to not adjust your opinions and views in light of new evidence. To think someone is a sheep because simply, from the outside, they appear to be going 'to and fro' is a very ignorant of looking at things, because you are not appreciating the evolution of information that spawns such shifts in views, in my opinion anyway. To stick to your guns simply to stick to your guns, even as new information suggests that your position might be outdated, is ignorant and stubborn.

What new evidence do you speak of praytell? The evidence that the AGW alarmists have been falsifying their data for almost 5 years and manipulating it before that? That's new info. Or how about the info that the climate fraud seems to be run by big oil and companies like Goldman Sachs who stand to make trillions off of a theory that to date has no empirical data to back it up? Or the well known fact that not a single computer model, of which the alarmists are so proud, can recreate the weather that occured 5 days ago?

Please, by all means let us know what new information is out there that will actually be relevent to the discussion.

I was speaking more in terms of generalities, that one must remain flexible in light of new information, experiences, etc... That, remaining steadfast seems to be considered virtuous in politics, even when it is not prudent. Since climate change has become political, I would consider what I said relevant to this discussion.

I just have one question: what motive would people have to be alarmist about climate change? Why would they feign this? It would seem that oil companies and many corporations don't want change because their success is built on a stable foundation, one built on an oil-fueled economy. To change the fundamental energy structure of our economy would restructure everything. That kind of systemic change is why no one wants to confront global warming, and people warp their thinking to convince themselver it is not true so they can continue to make money. The evidence is clear. global warming is happening, yet it is too much of a threat to businesses and those who hold stake in the infrastructure of the current economy. Greed will warp minds.

I stay very current on all of the information that comes in about climate in general. It behooves me to do this based on the fact I'm a geologist so have a professional interst. I live at the six thousand foot level in the Sierra Nevada Mountains so have a personal interest. And finally I have a long term interest for the eventual well being of my daughter.

You point out that the oil companies are involved in debunking AGW theory with the goal of "stabalizing" their markets. This is untrue. BP and ENRON were involved in the AGW fraud at its inception. BP (now that ENRON has gone Tango Uniform) and the other big oil ccompanies will make trillions of dollars to do basically nothing if all of the carbon trading schemes are rammed down the peoples throats. At least now we get something useful from them for the money we have to pay them.

Why fake it? Well lets see...that trillion dollar fake commodity certainly springs to mind. The redistribution of wealth is certainly a large elephant in the room (managed by Goldman Sachs and like of course), certainly the control of people rears its ugly head here. The EU wants massive population control as does the UN. The best way to control population is to control their wealth.

I suggest you do some serious research on the subject. I have. I was a firm alarmist for decades till I finally started to look at the science and just how bad it is. The first warning bells that went off occured when asceptic asked a colleague of mine what I thought was a very cogent question. The climatologist just blew him off saying that the man couldn't understand the answer if it were given to him. I pointed out that anyone who could ask the question in the first place should have no problem understanding the answer and I was curious about the answer as well. My colleague simply turned away and left.

That got me started. I did around four months of serious research and cornered said colleague and asked some very hard questions. He was unable to answer a single one of them in any meaningful way.

AGW theory is a house of cards. It has fallen apart since the revelations of CLIMATEGATE and rightly so. It will go down in history as one of the greatest frauds in history and the prime movers should be imprisoned.

Is the world warming? Of course it is. It has been doing so for 11,000 years. And within that 11,000 year period have been times when it was warmer than now and colder than now. There is plenty of empirical data to prove that statement. On the other hand there is the same amount of empirical data to prove AGW theory as there is to prove God exists.
In other words none.

 

[westwall]

You know its odd, but we can probably expect wild swings in weather behaviors whether the globe is getting warmer OR colder.

But we'll know that you are right Mdn2000, IF we see a persistent decline in overall global temperatures over time.

Right now, most of the experts seem to think the global is warming up.

As I am not an expert in this field, I sort of leave it to them to tell me what's happening.

editec, the only way the temperatures are going up is if they cherry pick their data such as last summer when they chose to use a single weather report from a airport to get their "record" temperature reading of 105 degrees. Or the continuing rewrite of historical data sets that GISS and HADCRU have been caught doing. Much less the New Zealand group that has been caught red handed and now the New Zealand government no longer uses their own official data sets as they are fraudulent.

On the other hand...we have now seen two very hard winters in a row. Last years was devestating both in the northern and southern hemispheres, and this years has certainly started off with a bang as evidenced by the Europe wide problems with early snow.

Read the foreign newspapers to get a better idea of just how bad the winter is over there right now. It will be eye opening.

Global warming could, I am informed, actually cause Europe and North America to experience another Ice Age.

If the amount of fresh water coming into the North Atlantic screws up the GULF STREAM then that might happen.

This is sort of why I am inclined to think we'd be better all describing what is happening as GLOBAL WEIRDING.

Because in complex interactive systems changes can have dramatic and somewhat unexpected (read counter intuitive) outcomes.

As to the charge that scientists world-wide are collectively "cooking the books"?

Well I'm dubious of that charge.

I don't discount the possibility that scientific consensus might have arrived at an incorrect conclusion, of course.

Science does do that since understanding is a constantly moving target.

Yes that is their next alarmist tactic. Don't you find it interesting that the same people who warned us of the impending ice age back in the 1970's are the same ones warning us of the impending GW who are now warning us of the impending ice age? Go back through the NY Times and every twenty to thirty years you will see the following, "It's going to be COLD!", "It's going to be WARM" This goes on for well over 100 years. There is one thing that is constant, it is allways the same basic pattern.

My advice is on't worry about your Global Weirding (good term BTW) as you you can't do a thing about it. If you wish to be good to the environment go back to the old 1970's mantra of "think globally, act locally" a better philosophy has never been uttered. Locally you can have a dramatic impact on the pollution in your area. If we get enough people acting locally that by definition translates into global action.

What we see in the AGW movement is big oil allied with investment companies like Goldman Sachs looting the first world and its citizenry for their gain. There is no mechanism in ANY of the carbon trading schemes for the actual reduction of pollution. Not one. That should be informative to you. If we were dealing with such a monumental impending disaster don't you think there would be some mechanism to actually stop the pollution?

Right now the only mechanism that exists is so that certain companies can make a lot of money for a fictitious commodity.

 

[mdn2000]

Further the solution is to use up all the oil at a faster rate producing wind turbines and solar panels that only have a life of 20 years or less. If peak oil is correct we won't have petrochemicals and fossil fuels to make all the raw materials required for the worlds largest solar plants and the worlds largest wind farms replacements in the next 20 years.

Big oil makes big money selling more product like propene to make fiberglass, further cement production requires massive amounts of energy which oil companies provide. The Blast Furnace used to make fiberglass requires boron, who owns the boron mines, what kind of money are they making, trains run on diesel, trains move the boron to market, the power plant at the boron mine is coal. Still what about aluminum production, steel production, copper, all these things are required in a far greater amount, the demand has skyrocketed, chemicals to make all this stuff, DOW chemical is making a fortune, what about Dupont, how are there profits effected when they supply materials to the worlds largest wind power plant that produces the worlds least amount of power compared to the materials and energy used to create the wind farm.

The solution to the problem is to deplete the oil.

These nuts actually hate people.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Further the solution is to use up all the oil at a faster rate producing wind turbines and solar panels that only have a life of 20 years or less. If peak oil is correct we won't have petrochemicals and fossil fuels to make all the raw materials required for the worlds largest solar plants and the worlds largest wind farms replacements in the next 20 years.

Big oil makes big money selling more product like propene to make fiberglass, further cement production requires massive amounts of energy which oil companies provide. The Blast Furnace used to make fiberglass requires boron, who owns the boron mines, what kind of money are they making, trains run on diesel, trains move the boron to market, the power plant at the boron mine is coal. Still what about aluminum production, steel production, copper, all these things are required in a far greater amount, the demand has skyrocketed, chemicals to make all this stuff, DOW chemical is making a fortune, what about Dupont, how are there profits effected when they supply materials to the worlds largest wind power plant that produces the worlds least amount of power compared to the materials and energy used to create the wind farm.

The solution to the problem is to deplete the oil.

These nuts actually hate people.

Nuclear is the answer...We could switch most of our electric needs over to that. The benefits over wind and other are the fact that they run at day and night, 24,7 365 days per year. They produce a tiny amount of co2 if that. We could switch over to it and end coal for energy use.

 

[mdn2000]

Nuclear power, sounds good to me, have you seen my pic, I am the one in yellow.

The benefit over Solar and Wind is Nuclear does not take massive amounts of oil to build a nuclear power plant, as compared to Solar or Wind.

Solar and Wind together can run any industry, zero, its dead, Solar and Wind will only run up the cost of everything and have in California.

From the lost of industry to a piss poor energy policy, Republicans and Democrats are screwing us.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Good lord

The sky is falling.

Global warming leads to global cooling. Wait, that makes no sense

urr
uhm

Lets call it climate change


It's the weather people. Nothing to worry about long term. I promise it will be summer in 5 - 6 months and we will be bitching about the heat.

 

[mdn2000]

I am predicting a 20 degree increase in temperature tomorrow for many parts of the globe, it will begin in morning and end mid-afternoon.

 

[boedicca]

Global warming could, I am informed, actually cause Europe and North America to experience another Ice Age.

This is the typical nonsensical spin coming from AGW proponents in the face of the Epic Fail of their "theories".

Global Warming does not result in the earth turning into a ball of ice.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Global warming could, I am informed, actually cause Europe and North America to experience another Ice Age.

This is the typical nonsensical spin coming from AGW proponents in the face of the Epic Fail of their "theories".

Global Warming does not result in the earth turning into a ball of ice.

The shut down of the gulf stream is one of the theory's that possibly explains the younger dyas...