Stop Denying Global Warming (Updated).

How many more times do we have to get tee shirt weather in january in the states along the US-canadian border before people will admit that the climate system is screwed up.

We don’t have winter anymore, we have a few months where it’s intermittently cold and there’s occasionally some snow on the ground for a week or more at a time.  When I was a kid (which was little more than a decade ago) we had these things called seasons, where it would actually stay cold in the winter and the snow wouldn’t melt immediately after it fell.  It would even accumulate and be hard to walk through.

That hasn’t happened in YEARS.  And I live in OHIO.

So you people down in texas and florida who think global warming is a hoax need to just move where there are more seasons than “not quite as hot as it was last month”.

In world news the town of Oodnadatta, Australia had to stop selling gasoline this week when temperatures got up to 119 degrees farenheit, passing the boiling point of the fuel they were selling.  It was literally coming out of the pump as steam.

I’m sure that’s normal…

[Update: It was 65 degrees earlier today – now it’s snowing.]

Advertisements

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

76 Responses to Stop Denying Global Warming (Updated).

  1. jmallory says:

    @quest4god@revelife – I’m in the Dayton area now, but I am from Celina.

  2. @agnophilo – I am aware of that timescale. 🙂 That is from mainstream science theory. I, on the other hand, have been exploring alternative theories. Whether I am mistaken in doing this, I will find out soon enough.Have you heard of Plasma Cosmology? Yes, that’s a theoretical model of the cosmos, based on plasma (the fourth state of matter)… The works of Tesla, Reich, and others who research free energy tie in neatly with this. I ran into this last year but have not extensively studied it. I should devote some time to it so that I can argue correctly instead of just sharing “what I heard”…..  I found this video today – the man supposedly has duplicated Tesla’s wireless power research.  Eric Dollard – is the Sun dying? http://youtu.be/asesblfb4zI – – – The news about the Sun dying, I also heard from KS; the reason given was that a specific part of the Sun that draws energy from the higher frequency bands was tampered with (note: I have not studied the specifics, but they DO give it – I don’t have access to it). The black hole is indeed connected to this story. They’re not saying “the black hole will crash into it,” but that — warning: this is gonna sound incredulous — the black hole is inorganic/artificial, created by the same beings who initiated the death cycle of the Sun; energy from this solar system is to be siphoned to feed the artificial matrix that they built at the other side of the black hole. Yes I know, it sounds like cult material. An atheist will not accept it because of the mention of “beings” messing with the universe. If you think about it though – you are made of energy and matter (and consciousness); and whatever you do affects your physical state, as well as your physical environment… You are moving, changing things, etc. Changing molecules of water, etc… It’s kind of the same thing – to higher dimensional beings, a universe could be like a molecule. Back to Plasma Cosmology — it is NOT affiliated with KS in any way. Both are independent systems of thought… You could say the former would be more “scientific” (as opposed to utterly speculative or completely abstract, with minimal chance of being tested for validity)… p.s. While I am presenting an alternative cause of the global warming (Sun’s death cycle, and possibly, Earth’s pole shift), I am not denying the destructive effects of current reliance on the finite energy sources. I’m all for alternative energy sources. And KS and PC also endorse alternative energy sources — the latter, advises looking into drawing power from the plasma field; while KS has these maps of energy points and mechanics, as completely far-out as it is…  p.p.s lol your playlist startled me. I’m glad there is an option to stop the music, or to change it. I changed the music. I love “Drops of Jupiter.” 

  3. YouToMe says:

    Respectfully, you were acting out of pride when you tried to put mark in his place. I was not much better towards you, and for that I apologize. I was showing you by example what hasty judgement feels like– no love there, for that I’m sorry. It’s not Christlike to make sweeping judgements about people based on your own bias. You must seek to understand, be quick to listen and slow to speak. That’s in Christian scripture. The second greatest commandment from Jesus Himself is to love one another. There was no love in your paragraph. The more you know Jesus intimately, the more you will appreciate Mark for the precious individuality and character he (and others) possesses). But you can’t really do that when you treat others with disrespect. Jesus was/ is all about building relationships; every individual you encounter should be respected and treated as precious regardless of how much you disagree. @wordwarrior39 – 

  4. @YouToMe – Among strangers humor and sarcasm are often taken the wrong way. I am sure that in the face-to-face confrontation between Elijah and 450 priests of Baal there was nothing lost in translation as Elijah disrespected them for their antics. Nobody was laughing when Elijah prayed, fire consumed his sacrifice and 450 were executed in front of the entire nation. Not all love is soft, but all love is fearless in the sacrifice. By the way, when I posted those two verses, the first one I think was noticed. The second verse, however, apparently was ignored, and yet, it came to pass with no discussion. Men scoff regardless of how truth is presented to them, whether it be Biblical truth of scientific or whatever. People cannot handle the truth that exists outside of private interpretations of reality.Global warming is caused by 1) the sun’s natural cycle aka sunspot activity, and 2) the destruction of plantlife that converts greenhouse gases back into oxygen. Get out and plant more trees is one step in the right direction. Anyway, no offense taken, and hopefully what I have attempted to share can be read in a way in which no offense is given, for no offense was intended. If anyone took offense, then I am sorry I offended you. 

  5. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Global warming (or climate change, however you refer to it) only requires average annual global temperatures to rise. It’s undeniable that this is happening. Literally no respected climate scientists deny that average global temperatures are rising due in large part to anthropogenic activity after the conversion of Richard Muller, who used to be the only really well-respected climate change skeptic. So, with that said, the rest is largely moot. Whether the temperatures swing abnormally cold occasionally in certain areas of the world doesn’t dispute the incontrovertible, undeniable, scientific fact that the vast majority of the Earth is getting hotter on average, and that those areas are among the most densely populated areas of Earth.  However, the scientific literature 25 years ago actually predicted, due to very complex meteorological factors, that a both extreme cold and hot swings would become more prominent. This prediction was ridiculed by climate change deniers then. Now that it’s happening, this same group argues that the existence of exaggerated cold cycles (as part of an indisputable, overall trend of higher global temperatures) somehow casts doubt on the theory? That makes no sense. It’s just another example of the goal post shifting that has become so prominent among anti-science groups who listen to people like Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh (or, in the case of liberals, PETA) instead of accredited scientists and academic literature in peer-reviewed journals. 

  6. @UTRow1 – Sorry, still not buying.  First of all, I don’t trust anyone who is on the payroll of the government, the UN, or connected with any of those groups.  Second, the people behind the GW movement have already outed themselves:http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-quotes-climate-change-quotes.htmlIt is all about power and control.  More specifically the establishment of world government, and robbing people of freedom. Again, I don’t understand why you never recognize that agenda is a factor.  I am not convinced that the average world temperature is rising, and if it were then yes, I would expect winters to be more mild, not just in the US but elsewhere as well.  For the last 4 years or so there have been severe winters.  Saying that it gets colder as it gets hotter is a tautology.  Either it’s getting colder or it’s getting hotter.  If one part of the world is experiencing excessive heat then it may be a local problem rather than a world problem.  Being distrustful of the establishment, a non-atheist, or a skeptic of views that are accepted by the left does not make one anti-science.  Being able to think things through and form your own hypothesis is an essential precursor to utilizing the scientific method.  I don’t really see much of that on the left.  What I see mainly is masses of people swallowing hook line and sinker whatever the government and the liberal media puts out.  I don’t see any critical thinking or questioning, just a lot of blind trust and in some cases brown nosing. 

  7. agnophilo says:

    @brown_buffalo – Literally or figuratively?@wordwarrior39 – Everything I said was relevant.  I don’t have the time to work out what your problem or problems are.@quest4god@revelife – I try not to give out information that specific on xanga, but NE ohio, and none of the places you listed.@obamawatch – You can disagree all you like.  As far as natural vs manmade, the sun’s output fluctuates very regularly, it can’t account for the current trend.  And other factors like volcanic eruptions which actually cool the earth have been steadily increasing over the past 50 years.

  8. agnophilo says:

    @sacredrendezvous – I am so sick of people ignorantly stressing the word “theory” to try act like it discredits scientific ideas.  The word “theory” has a different definition in science than it does in the everyday sense of the word and acting like atomic theory is a hunch or a guess because it has the word theory in it is just ignorant.As for “plasma cosmology” I read the entire article and still have no idea what it is.  The article, like the others you’ve posted, seems to talk around the subject rather than addressing it specifically or giving any particulars.  As for the guy who says the sun is dying, he’s a crackpot who has no idea what he’s talking about.  He says the sun isn’t visible in outer space.  Is he correct?  He as much as says that his whole “model” hinges on this claim.  He says the stars are invisible from outer space, this is a conspiracy theory that originates from overexposure, the stars are often invisible to a camera when overpowered by something very bright like the surface of the moon.  You can’t see the stars during the “day” on the moon for the same reason you can’t see them during the day from the earth, because of light pollution.  This is also why you can see a few dozen stars at night near a city that has street lights but you can see around 2,000 stars in the country.  And in space the stars are much brighter and much easier to see (see video), which is why the best telescopes like the hubble are in space.  Why would NASA spend ten billion dollars a year to maintain the hubble telescope to look at invisible stars?The video also claims that nuclear fusion only happens in solar flares and not in the sun itself, and that there is no way to prove otherwise.  In reality nuclear reactions emit a number of types of radiation and particles, most of which get absorbed and re-emitted over and over again by the extremely dense interior of the sun so we don’t see the radiation in it’s original form – but neutrinos are produced by nuclear explosions and they pass through regular matter and we detect a steady stream of them coming from the sun, so this guy is full of crap.  He claims the sun is hollow but if that were the case it would have much less gravity and no neutrinos and it would collapse under it’s own weight.  I’m not even going to bother with the nonsense about different dimensions etc.This stuff is nonsense.  And I am not saying that casually or to be rude, I mean it is literally non-sensical.  These people use real scientific terms like energy, flux, electromagnetism etc in incorrect ways that are too vague to mean anything.  Oh and as far as duplicating tesla’s wireless energy “research”, the technology for wireless energy can be reproduced by anyone with internet access, it’s not a state secret.  It’s just not efficient or profitable.  As for the black hole thing, I don’t accept that.  Not because I’m an atheist but because it makes no sense to me and I can’t see what if anything it could possibly be based on.  “Beings”?  What beings?  Where?  And how do you know that?  If someone said the moon was an inter-dimensional being named splorg from the quasar defribulation nexus and that it’s gravity was really a by-product of it’s soul radiating spiritual energy, would you accept that?  Why or why not?

  9. quest4god says:

    @agnophilo – I understand.  It’s just that “meeting” a fellow Buckeye is special to me.  I have lived in NC since Hugo and love it here, but somehow I’ll always be a “Carolina Buckeye.”  I won’t try to guess further, but maybe you know some of the places I mentioned.Thanks for your reply.

  10. agnophilo says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – A lot of those quotes seem to be out of context, misleading or intended to convey a different meaning than what they originally meant, ie I don’t think Jacques Cousteau was proposing mass-murder, but the quote they give out of context makes it sound that way. Either way the idea that our current level of consuming resources is unsustainable is a matter of simple math.  We have A resources, nature restores B resources every C years, so in D years we’re fucked.  When the rivers that cities get their drinking water from start shrinking as the populations of those cities grow people start to worry and plan for the future.  So many conservatives stock up on guns, ammo and dried food etc in fear of possible, hypothetical and largely imaginary problems, but the water supply drying up doesn’t worry anyone?  Isn’t it reasonable to plant some new trees to replace the ones we cut down?  Or limit what people can dump in the water supply?  The smog in china is so bad it’s actually visible from space, and pedestrians have to wear masks to work to prevent lung scarring and other bad health effects.  That’s because in a country that actually is communist they embrace the philosophy of the republican party and think regulating industry is bad for business.  The world population passed 8 billion, if all 8 billion (and counting) of those people owned cars and used electricity that smog would cover the entire planet.Turning the planet gray doesn’t seem like a bad idea to you?  Freedom means freedom to do anything but that which hurts society or other people.  I no more have the inalienable right to pollute the air you breathe and the water you drink than I have the inalienable right to poison your food.You factor in motives?  Like those of the oil and coal industries?

  11. @agnophilo  If you have coffee in your hands and you don’t expect it, it can cause a mess. 

  12. @agnophilo – Dude, those quotes are only the tip of the iceburg.  Population control and genocide are on the “to do” list of the New World Order.  Check out the Georgia Guide Stones (Elberton Georgia) for a list of what they plan to do.  They have boldly and openly proclaimed what they want to do to the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_GuidestonesAlso watch this video about how they want to put radioactive metals in our products:

    Let me tell you something about population growth.  We do not have natural population growth in the US, especially not white people.  In fact our birth rates are not sufficient to cope with the death rate.  The total number of people in the US is growing, but it is because of IMMIGRATION.  It is the 3rd world that has a problem with population growth, like Mexico.  If you want to make things better and cleaner in the US, you should come over to my side and be anti-immigration.  Yes China is polluted and nasty, and you know what we can do about it?  Not much of anything.  I cannot believe you compared the government of China to the Republican party.  That is like comparing apples to rocks.  In China the government controls and regulates everything.  There is no free industry there.  They have a command economy, which is what the Democrats are trying to create in the US.  The government in China does not need to instigate panics to get people on board surrendering their freedom, because the government already controls everything.  Once the full command economy is in place in the US then our government will no longer care about environmentalism.  OK we aren’t concerned about the whole world, we are only concerned about our own country.  My guess is that you are a supporter of world government, but you need to realize that world government means no freedom of any kind.  If we have world government it’s not going to be pacifist environmentalist white liberals dictating how the world should be, it’s going to be full blown dictators dictating how the world should be.  They will tax you extra, and redistribute your money to the 3rd world.  They will also relocate masses of ignorant villagers from the 3rd world to your neighborhood.  I agree with you about re-planting trees, and about air pollution being a bad thing, but we are not going to change our lifestyle in the US because of idiots in the 3rd world who don’t know how to act.  I also don’t appreciate the attempts at population control that our government is foisting upon us because the 3rd world is over crowded.  Overpopulation is not a world problem, it’s a 3rd world problem.  If you want to help the 3rd world then go there and teach them how to live and be civilized.  Perhaps it is time to re-institute white man’s burdern.  Go there, and teach them about contraception, pollution, and littering, sanitation, etc., but not in order to bring them here, just to fix their own country.  But here are some right wing solutions to these problems.  1) space exploration and colonization.  We can move certain heavy industries off planet.  Also, if we terraform other bodies in our solar system and/or come up with viable interstellar travel then we will have a natural outlet for any population pressures.  Maybe we can move 3rd world people there to establish farms and mine raw materials if they are looking for a place to go.2) Economic Sanctions: half the reason why China is such an abysmal hellhole is because they have been propped up by the US.  If the US had never entered into trade agreements with China then the Chinese government would certainly have collapsed by now.  What our government could do, instead of taking away our own freedoms, is put tarrifs on foreign goods produced by countries that are major polluters.  This would be benificial in two ways, one is that it would help domestic industries by inflating the price of foreign goods, and on the other hand it would cause the polluters to either clean up their act or downsize.There is nothing, NOTHING that justifies world government, ever.  I would take an alien invasion over world government any day. 

  13. BTW, I just saw your other comment when I came in here.  Obviously the odds that you are going to recognize the existence of God are low, which is why I made the comparison with Global Warming.  It was not intended to be too terribly serious.  That being said, the evidence for God is good, as is the logic of the Biblical narrative.One thing is that it says in the last days the whole Earth is going to groan like a woman in labor, and that we are going to have some environmental cataclysms.  We can expect extreme weather, both hot and cold, but that isn’t “global warming.”  As I said to the other guy, saying that it gets colder as it gets hotter is a tautology.  We have seen some extreme winters lately, and some extreme summers (but not in my place).  Now, it could be that we are approaching the end, or it could be that these weather fluctuations are part of natural cycles.  I hope it’s the latter.  One thing you have to keep in mind is that the scientific equipment used to track and record data, and to send information instantly around the world is all relatively new, so extreme weather may seem alarming, not because it’s happening more, but because we have more of an awareness of it.  We just have to watch and see.  But at some point things are going to get really terrible, and there is going to be jack all we can do about it.  In fact, it is written that if it were not for God shortening the days then all life would be destroyed in that period.  World government is another sign of the end BTW. 

  14. Also, sorry about letting the other debate go.  I got busy and I lost the thread.  You update a lot. 

  15. agnophilo says:

    @brown_buffalo – So literally then?@Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – “Dude, those quotes are only the tip of the iceburg.  Population control and genocide are on the “to do” list of the New World Order.  Check out the Georgia Guide Stones (Elberton Georgia) for a list of what they plan to do. They have boldly and openly proclaimed what they want to do to the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones“Where’s the part about killing people?”Also watch this video about how they want to put radioactive metals in our products:

    So the department of energy is the new world order?  And there’s a bit of wisdom I try to live by – never attribute to malice what can easily be explained by stupidity.  If you had a memo that said “hey, lets put radioactive crap in stuff so people will die, mwahahaha!” then yeah that would support your conspiracy theory.  Until then the simpler (and less insane) explanation is that someone somewhere is stupid.”Let me tell you something about population growth.  We do not have natural population growth in the US, especially not white people.  In fact our birth rates are not sufficient to cope with the death rate.  The total number of people in the US is growing, but it is because of IMMIGRATION.  It is the 3rd world that has a problem with population growth, like Mexico.”  I know, that’s why the people you demonize are working mostly in the third world to try to address the problem.”If you want to make things better and cleaner in the US, you should come over to my side and be anti-immigration.”I don’t see how immigrants make america less clean…”Yes China is polluted and nasty, and you know what we can do about it?  Not much of anything.”  You contradict yourself later and propose a plan of action.”I cannot believe you compared the government of China to the Republican party.  That is like comparing apples to rocks.”  I said that they’ve embraced the republican philosophy that pollution is less important than production, which they have.  I did not say the two were equal in every way.”In China the government controls and regulates everything.  There is no free industry there.  They have a command economy, which is what the Democrats are trying to create in the US.”  Another conspiracy, great.”The government in China does not need to instigate panics to get people on board surrendering their freedom, because the government already controls everything.  Once the full command economy is in place in the US then our government will no longer care about environmentalism.”So now you can tell the future too?  Have any lotto numbers for me?”OK we aren’t concerned about the whole world, we are only concerned about our own country.”  Which is like trying to keep your liver healthy at the expense of your heart, or visa versa.”My guess is that you are a supporter of world government, but you need to realize that world government means no freedom of any kind.  If we have world government it’s not going to be pacifist environmentalist white liberals dictating how the world should be, it’s going to be full blown dictators dictating how the world should be.”  Why would democracy cease to apply to international treaties?  Justify your statements.”They will tax you extra, and redistribute your money to the 3rd world.”  Who is “they”?  And I don’t mind some of our resources being “redistributed” to people who are far worse off than we are – charity is a good thing.”They will also relocate masses of ignorant villagers from the 3rd world to your neighborhood.”No, that was what they did in the slave era, not what anybody is proposing now.  Though it’s telling that your nightmare scenario is being surrounded by people who are ethnically and culturally different from you.”I agree with you about re-planting trees, and about air pollution being a bad thing, but we are not going to change our lifestyle in the US because of idiots in the 3rd world who don’t know how to act.”  You don’t get it.  It’s not that they don’t know how to act, it’s that if they start acting like us geniuses they’re going to kill the planet.  Every advancement we make in making clean energy technology affordable now will prevent developing countries (with massive populations) from adopting fossil fuel technologies in the near future.  For once we have a chance as a civilization to get out in front of a problem rather than just reacting to it once it’s a catastrophe.”I also don’t appreciate the attempts at population control that our government is foisting upon us because the 3rd world is over crowded.  Overpopulation is not a world problem, it’s a 3rd world problem.”  What is being forced on you exactly?”If you want to help the 3rd world then go there and teach them how to live and be civilized.  Perhaps it is time to re-institute white man’s burdern.”What we’re doing is teaching them not to make the mistakes we made.  Get off your racist high-horse.”Go there, and teach them about contraception, pollution, and littering, sanitation, etc., but not in order to bring them here, just to fix their own country.”You think america would be better off with more littering and pollution and less sanitation and contraception?”But here are some right wing solutions to these problems.  1) space exploration and colonization.  We can move certain heavy industries off planet.”  Setting aside that even most conservatives would laugh at this, those that don’t probably like it because it’s by definition impossible to implement and therefore is a non-solution to a set of problems they don’t see as real problems.  And it takes energy to move things into space – why are solar panels and windmills ridiculous, un-tested technology but building the USS enterprise is a viable option?”Also, if we terraform other bodies in our solar system and/or come up with viable interstellar travel then we will have a natural outlet for any population pressures.”  Yeah that will be great a thousand years from now, but at the current rate of population growth we’ll all be dead long before then, so how about we look at some short term solutions too?”Maybe we can move 3rd world people there to establish farms and mine raw materials if they are looking for a place to go.”Or maybe we can get women into the workplace and lower infant mortality rates and promote clean energy and sustainable lifestyles so they can stay right where they are while not destroying the environment?  Moving them to the suburbs of america and rocketing them to other planets seems reasonable to you but a little environmentalism seems radical, crazy and dangerous?”2) Economic Sanctions: half the reason why China is such an abysmal hellhole is because they have been propped up by the US.  If the US had never entered into trade agreements with China then the Chinese government would certainly have collapsed by now.  What our government could do, instead of taking away our own freedoms, is put tarrifs on foreign goods produced by countries that are major polluters.  This would be benificial in two ways, one is that it would help domestic industries by inflating the price of foreign goods, and on the other hand it would cause the polluters to either clean up their act or downsize.”Oh, you mean use global government to establish a new world order and manipulate markets to achieve your own ends?  Congratulations, you just became everything you hate and fear.”There is nothing, NOTHING that justifies world government, ever.  I would take an alien invasion over world government any day.”Nothing except the whims of what you think is best for the world.  When liberals use government to do what they think is best it’s tyranny and communism and a threat to liberty.  When conservatives do the exact same thing, just with different ideas, it’s freedom and apple pie.It’s just spin and bullshit.

  16. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – [First of all, I don’t trust anyone who is on the payroll of the government, the UN, or connected with any of those groups.]That’s a really convenient way for you to avoid all the scientific evidence that is directly or indirectly subsidized by the government, but it’s not rational and not a viable argument. You can’t just dismiss thousands of articles written by people working for the government or receiving money from the government simply because you have unsubstantiated paranoias and conspiracies. Furthermore, many climate scientists are not on the government dole, but rather, employees of state or private academic institutions. Regardless, you need to directly address their arguments and evidence, not cite far-reaching conspiracies or out-of-context quotes from non-scientists or a small (less than 0.1%) number of climate scientists that says absolutely nothing about the quality of their conclusions, data, methods, or research. Further, if I were to apply your argument, I could simply dismiss everything you have said as, “Sorry, not buying it. We all know that climate deniers are subsidized by big oil and a secret population of subterranean, intergalactic mole men. See?” Meaningful arguments about these issues began and end with the peer-reviewed scientific evidence, not personal conspiracy theories completely unrelated to the evidence. [Second, the people behind the GW movement have already outed themselves]Greenpeace, news journalists, EPA employees, celebrity scientists who are not climatologists, government employees, non-scientist IPCC representatives, etc. are reactionary people who interpret and respond to the scientific evidence for various reasons. They are not “behind” the scientific evidence supporting climate change, and thus, not “behind” the scientific theory of climate change (e.g., EPA is not a scientific organization that produces climate research, it is a quasi-legal body that effectuates legislation through regulations and quasi-judicial actions). In fact, they have absolutely no input whatsoever regarding the science. As a result, what they think about the scientific evidence or do in response to it has no bearing to my contention that AGW evidence is irrefutable at this point in time. Similarly, what politicians, government officials, or private corporations try to gain from the occurrence of climate change is irrelevant to whether or not it is happening. As a result, none of the quotes you provide are relevant to what I have said. Whether government officials use climate change to redistribute wealth, or private corporations suffer from climate regulations, or globalization occurs is irrelevant. What matters is whether you have valid critiques of the underlying science. You don’t. That’s the beginning and end of this argument. What’s really ironic is that the best analogy I can think of for what you are doing is the lunatic, anti-gun left (which is virtually non-existent, but a handful of these people exist). They see a shooting by a mentally ill person and say “see, guns are inherently dangerous for everyone! Let’s get rid of them all!” It’s ridiculous because a mentally ill person is not representative of most gun owners. Similarly, you see a politician or government official propose climate policy (that they probably genuinely think is for the common good, but you nonetheless disagree with) and you decry all of climate change as a dangerous sham. However, the people you are basing your conclusion on have no bearing on the scientific validity of AGW because the only evidence you have chosen to look at is not representative.[But here are some right wing solutions to these problems. ]The first solution isn’t supported by virtually any conservatives, and thus, isn’t right wing. It’s just kind of stupid. It’s like saying “I propose we cure cancer with unicorn farts.” Yes, in theory, if unicorn farts cured cancer, it would be a good solution. Unfortunately, unicorns aren’t real, and neither is the type of space colonization you propose (nor will it be for many decades). The second solution is close to what liberals proposed in the 1970s after some human rights violations in China, but the Nixon Administration wanted to build economic relations with China, no inhibit them. Regardless, no conservatives really support this idea either, so its more of a fringe idea than a conservative solution.  

  17. @agnophilo – The part about killing people?  Did you compare what they want the population to be with what the population actually is?  You do realize that a lot of people have to die to get from here to there yes?The DOE is not exculisively the New World Order but it is certainly a part of it, as is that sad puppet Obama and most of the politicians.  They want to put radioactive stuff in our products to reduce the population, which is also why they have airplanes fly over our cities and dust the air with different substances.What people am I demonizing?If you go to a 3rd world country, you will find the ground littered with litter.  When large blocs of uneducated people from the 3rd world come here they bring their habits and culture with them.  In any case, I wasn’t even talking about that, what I was saying is that if you don’t want population growth in the US then you should be anti-immigration, because that is where all of our population growth is coming from.”China is polluted and nasty, and you know what we can do about it?  Notmuch of anything.”  You contradict yourself later and propose a plan of action.”–I did’t say that there was nothing that could be done, I said that there was not much of anything that could be done.The Democrats and whatever REpublicans go along with them, ARE trying to create a command economy.  Why do you think they keep trying to tell the private sector what to do and why do you think they are increasing government control?  This is happening.The way you guess the future is by looking at the past.  That is how I can see where we are headed.”You don’t get it.  It’s not that they don’t know how to act, it’s that if they start acting like us geniuses they’re going to kill the planet.”–What are you talking about?  They are the biggest polluters and they are acting nothing like us.  Holy crap.  You really do have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world.Didn’t know horses could be racist.””Go there, and teach them about contraception, pollution, andlittering, sanitation, etc., but not in order to bring them here, just to fix their own country.”You think america would be better off with more littering and pollution and less sanitation and contraception?”–What does your comment have to do with anything I said?  If I ever become rich then you are invited to go with me next time I go to a third world country.  I will personally pay all of your expenses, and you don’t have to do anything other than not drink the water or eat from the street vendors.”Setting aside that even most conservatives would laugh at this, those that don’t probably like it because it’s by definition impossible to implement and therefore is a non-solution to a set of problems they don’t see as real problems.  And it takes energy to move things into space – why are solar panels and windmills ridiculous, un-tested technology but building the USS enterprise is a viable option?”–Time for you to start reading more science articles.  Obviously we would build the factories there, not fly them in from Earth.  Also, we need to have the space program free to operate without being cancelled by dopes like Obama.  “Yeah that will be great a thousand years from now, but at the current rate of population growth we’ll all be dead long before then, so how about we look at some short term solutions too?”–Sooner than that if we can keep the Democrats from cancelling the program.  But not us, it’s the 3rd world that is growing.  Our population is shrinking.  “Or maybe we can get women into the workplace and lower infant mortality rates and promote clean energy and sustainable lifestyles so they can stay right where they are while not destroying the environment?  Moving them to the suburbs of america and rocketing them to other planets seems reasonable to you but a little environmentalism seems radical, crazy and dangerous?”–Hold on now, I never said anything about moving them to America.  I said specifically that we should not do that.”Oh, you mean use global government to establish a new world order and manipulate markets to achieve your own ends?  Congratulations, you just became everything you hate and fear.”I never called for using global government to do anything.  I was talking strictly about imposing tarrifs on foreign goods.Our way calls for less government, your way calls for more government.  That is why we call your ideas heavy handed and controlling.  The thing is, less government means you can still do all of your liberal things, and you get to keep more of your money to do whatever you want with.  Although my guess is that you aren’t paying taxes anyways.  Almost missed these comments:”Why would democracy cease to apply to international treaties?  Justify your statements.”–DO we get a referendum vote on any treaties?”They will tax you extra, and redistribute your money to the 3rd world.”  Who is “they”?  And I don’t mind some of our resources being “redistributed” to people who are far worse off than we are – charity is a good thing.”–World government.  OF course you don’t mind, because you know it’s someone else’s money who is going to be redistrubed.  Well I do mind.  I lost $400 a month to taxes, so at the end of the month I’m only getting about 1600 a month.  Do you think I can support a family on that?  I can’t even afford medical insurance on that.  I should not be prevented by the government from being able to start a family.

  18. @UTRow1 – If you look at the links I sent Agnophilo, including the link to the wikipedia entry about the Georgia Guidestones, you will see that my fears are neither unsubstantiated nor unfounded.  Elitists from all over the world have came out and said specifically what it is they want do do, and how the global warming scare factors in.Would you like me to send you more links and quotes?  Because I can.  Just because someone is a scientist does not mean that they are above corruption.  Without seeing any specific research paper and reading the methadologies used I cannot give a point by point refutation.  As it stands now, I don’t trust the motives or methodology.  I have not found the temperatures to be extra warm lately, so I’m not getting ready to jump on the GW bandwagon any time soon.That being said, you should know that the Earth’s average temperature goes through natural flucations.  http://www.edgeblog.net/2009/5-myths-of-modern-liberals/http://forgottenliberty.com/is-global-warming-a-hoax/We still are not at the levels that were present during the time of the Vikings.  In the past I always thought global warming was unsubstantiated but harmless.  After I found out that it is being used to forward causes such as population control and world government then I changed my mind. 

  19. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Stop. Back up. What I want you to address is the original comment I made regarding, specifically, the scientific consensus and evidence regarding global warming (AGW). I am not interested in reading wild blogs or watching Youtube videos by non-experts about wild conspiracies or political phenomena loosely related or completely unrelated to the scientific evidence supporting AGW. Again, what governments, businesses, politicians, celebrities, or shadowy conspiracy theory figures do in response to the evidence of global warming doesn’t interest me. I am only addressing the unequivocal, irrefutable scientific consensus regarding AGW. I am challenging you to refute that evidence, if you can (hint: invoking Alex Jones’ NWO pet conspiracy theories is not sufficient, as much, if not most, of AGW research has been conducted by private academic institutions or corporations that cannot ostensibly be tied to that nonsense). 

  20. @UTRow1 – Consensus of any kind does not make something true.  I have not seen any convincing evidence of GW.  You can link me to an article or presentation you find convincing and I can address that specifically.  But, if you do then I expect you to also check out any links I include in my response.

  21. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Sigh…I never argued that consensus makes it true. I said the evidence AGW is occurring is overwhelming; as a result of this irrefutable evidence, there is a scientific consensus . Read that sentence twice and think carefully about it. I am not arguing that AGW = truth because some general consensus exists. That being said, there’s an important point to be made regarding scientific consensus that is rather problematic for anti-science conservatives on a variety of issues (like evolution, vaccines, and AGW): When scientific evidence is overwhelming, there is often a scientific consensus. A scientific consensus is not a “consensus” and can’t simply be dismissed because, hey, sometimes opinions are wrong. A scientific consensus is, for all intents and purposes, a fact because modern scientific consensuses are rarely wrong (and I dare you to name a dozen examples over the last 15 years proving otherwise if you disagree). All else being equal, your theory is probably not correct based on this fact alone because it is more rational to assume a scientific consensus is correct than to assume it is incorrect. When experts, whether they’re scientific experts or car mechanics, are in 99% agreement about an issue directly related to their expertise, that opinion is usually correct. That’s just common sense. Now to your challenge. I want to first note that I should link to individual studies because that’s not what your claims require. Your beliefs require you to undermine or disprove ALL (or at least the majority) of the evidence supporting global warming. That’s what AGW denialism requires (i.e., “AGW isn’t occurring.”). If you can’t prove AGW is more likely than not incorrect, then all else being equal, it’s only rational to assume it is correct (because it is supported by a majority of evidence).  But, I am interested in seeing you struggle. So, here is my initial response: First, address all the raw data substantiating AGW. Much of it is available here, under “Data Sources”. Specifically address why each of those data sets is unreliable to the point of supporting your contention AGW isn’t happening. Next, address the studies analyzing that data and concluding that anthropogenic climate change is occurring (there are thousands of these studies you would need to critique to meet your argumentative burden, but start with thisthis, and this). Then, address the verifiable effects of climate change that are occurring (such as Arctic sea ice decline, evolutionary/ecological responses to AGWpositive feedback loops, and deleterious changes to marine ecosystems). In addition to explaining why these phenomena are not occurring due to AGW, I would also be interested to hear your explanation for why they are occurring. Please note that simply saying “Well, sun spots could be causing this” (or the like) is not sufficient. You need to specifically explain why AGW is wrong, and why your explanation for these phenomena is more likely correct than AGW by citing to the available evidence. Lastly, I would like for you to specifically explain why you believe, despite knowing very little about AGW, that you know more about climate change than the world’s foremost climate experts (see here). Because, and let’s be honest here, you don’t have a background in a relevant science or statistics; you don’t read the peer-reviewed science or keep abreast with climate science; and you probably don’t even research these issues as much as many interested lay people. What makes you so certain that all these subject matter experts are wrong, and you are right? 

  22. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Last comment edited for clarification.

  23. @UTRow1 – I have a very serious question.  Are you working directly for the government or do you run propaganda for them for free?That being said, being anti-evolution is not being anti-science.  Evolution is just a pseudo-science narrative for atheism.  If you want to believe in it then that’s fine, but if you’re going to believe that everything came from nothing completely on it’s own you should consider toning the attitude down just a few notches.  That being said, it is things like this that make me doubt global warming: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/08/16895255-very-serious-winter-storm-begins-battering-new-england?liteThat, combined with quotes like those I already said where people behind the GW movement clearly stated what the point of it was.  Statements like that ruin the credibility of the theory as  objective science.  As I stated to you before, and as you already know, the Earth goes through natural cycles of warm and cold.  I provided links illustrating that.  We are still not up to the temperature that existed during the time of the Vikings.  If we have long sustained temperatures that are a record high, then I might be worried, but not about ice caps melting, I would be worried about the left using the crisis to set up an authoritarian world regime.  I said one link.  Now do you really expect me to spend a whole year reading all of that or is there something specific you would like me to look at?  This first page alone has so many links.  Been looking at the data from the Antarctic stations: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.htmlA lot of it is old data.  I see some temperature fluctuations but nothing there to justify a panic. 

  24. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – No, no, no. You asked me to provide evidence for you to address. No goal post shifting or obfuscation. I am not interested in conspiratorial links with virtually no citations to direct evidence, or your half-hearted assertions with 0 citations (that have been disproved for some time now–this, this, and this). Directly address the evidence I have provided, please.If you can’t directly disprove or undermine the available evidence, you skepticism is unfounded. What non-scientists like the politicians, advocates, and administrators you have quoted say has 0 bearing on the scientific evidence and whether anthropogenic climate change is occurring. Period. I don’t understand why this is so difficult for you to understand. What you need to address in order to have credible views on this issue is the scientific evidence itself. You want to keep harping on dastardly globalization plans by shadowy figures in response to climate change hysteria, but that’s irrelevant to what I am asking you to discuss and what your argument requires you to discuss to be reasonable. Even if there is a world-wide conspiracy using climate change for political advantage, that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t occurring or isn’t a threat. You seem to see the former and conclude the later is simply a lie for absolutely no reason. However, this is an egregiously nonsensical assumption. There’s no reason for you to make it.Edit: I’m just curious, but do you also deny the greenhouse effect? Do you accept the greenhouse effect, but doubt human emissions impact temperature? Do you believe human emissions contribute to warming through the greenhouse effect, but believe that the impact is offset by less emissions from other sources (e.g., volcanoes)? If so, explain why with citations to reputable scientific evidence,  please. 

  25. UTRow1 says:

    @Ambrosius_Augustus_Rex – Part 2: [Been looking at the data from the Antarctic stations:http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.htmlA lot of it is old data.  I see some temperature fluctuations but nothing there to justify a panic.]Uhh…Temperatures can fluctuate while increasing over time, which is what is happening (look at the analyzed data from the same page, which shows the temperature is trending upwards). What you think you see when you simply look at the data is largely irrelevant; what matters is what a statistical analysis reveals. Statisticians don’t make huge sums of money by simply looking at data plotted on x-y-z coordinates and saying, “Well, that doesn’t look too weird. Nothing abnormal here.”Furthermore, the fact that some of the data “is old” is a strange critique, because it includes recent data. Having more data means more reliable conclusions, not less reliable. That is, unless you can prove that the older data is somehow not reliable, which you probably can’t. You seem to be simply assuming that the old data is unreliable or that the recent data isn’t sufficient. Basically, you aren’t making actual arguments that undermine the evidence. You are just speculating about things that could, hypothetically, cause the data to be unreliable (if true). However, you have no reason to assume those conditions, and thus, no reason to assume the evidence is unreliable. Also, why else would the polar ice be melting/receding at unprecedented rates if the temperatures weren’t rising (and remaining melted)? If temperatures were fluctuating, but remaining within the same ranges, we wouldn’t expect to see, for example, unprecedented polar ice melting, ecological changes, extinction rates, etc. But we do see those things because what is happening is not geologically typical.  [I said one link.  Now do you really expect me to spend a whole year reading all of that or is there something specific you would like me to look at?  This first page alone has so many links.]I expect you to be able to defend your arguments. If your views were educated and supported, you would be able to defend them in the face of this evidence. However, you can’t because your beliefs are wrong, as demonstrated by this overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence. If it would take you a year to address these sources, you are out of your depth and don’t have a sound enough educational foundation relevant to these issues to have the opinions you have. 

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s