The scandal of fiddled global warming data

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by ALS, Jun 23, 2014.

  1. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    Not necessarily, As the seas really rise, there will have to be adaptation on a big scale. Which will require some cooperation. Currently, I think it is about politics, money and power and not about real solutions or adaptations. That is one reason why I don't think we should do anything now. Wait for a real reason and then act. If we act now, they aren't real solutions.

    Hence my position. Currently, the hysteria about global warming is about money politics and power, and not solutions. So, wait and adapt.

    A good example is the example raised about Norfolk. Now what was reported is it is all about global warming and sea level rise. It was a clear misrepresentation of the facts and an obvious attempt to sway public opinion to assist in gaining money, politics or power. It was such an obvious omission, it could be considered a lie.

    They have a real problem in Norfolk and mostly caused by subsidence. I think they should act now to solve a problem that is actually happening right now. It is an actual problem happening right now and should be addressed. Yes they need and should act collectively.
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2014
  2. ksstathead

    ksstathead Moderator

    So, the little Norfolk problem should be collectively solved by 'them' meaning not the Federal or state governments, since it is just a simple adaptation facing the local folks?

    New Orleans faced a little problem, but most folks wanted Federal dollars to fix it. But I guess a small naval station notwithstanding, 'they' should just take care of it locally in Norfolk...
     
  3. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    Oh I think everyone would "want" others money to fix something. That is human nature. Norfolk faces a double problem. Both rising sea level and subsidence. It might be cheaper just to relocate it. As for New Orleans, it is a mistake to rebuilt anything that is below sea level already. There is little hope in the long run for that area.
     
  4. ksstathead

    ksstathead Moderator

    So the adaptation you are suggesting is that everyone abandon Norfolk? You cannot simply move it since wherever 'it' goes, everything is already owned by others.

    Sadly, we will have to abandon some cities, but a little carbon tax and regulation now would just possibly inspire the rest of the world to act, thereby reducing or delaying the abandonment of our coastal areas.
     
  5. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    Or they could build a levee and hold it off for a while. It depends on what they want to do. In the long run, it appears they are sunk.
     
  6. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    It would probably have no effect other than more taxes.
     
  7. ksstathead

    ksstathead Moderator

    No, at a minimum, it would cause the market to shift to less carbon-intensive methods, the natural impact of forcing our activities to bear their true cost.


    On its own, it would have no measurable impact on climate change, but great rivers begin as trickles.
     
  8. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    OK I guess we disagree on it's impact.
     
  9. ksstathead

    ksstathead Moderator

    If you reject the notion that people respond to tax incentives (+/-), then yes, we disagree.
     
  10. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    OK, I thought you said, "little carbon tax and regulation" not tax incentive. But yea, we still probably disagree. Not the first disagreement, and probably not the last.

    I guess you can consider tax as an "incentive" not to do it and as such a "tax incentive".
     
  11. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    So no concern at all about non-humans and there inability to adapt?

    Animals did adapt over thousands or millions of year in the past, but this time humans have taken over, or will take over the same areas animals might have adapted in.

    There is plenty of science following how animals are failing to adapt currently, and it will only get worse.

    Do animals matter in your future?
     
  12. bestmapman

    bestmapman Fighting untruth and misinformation

    Actually, I have not given that much thought. I am not sure how I feel about it. Certainly extinction is not new. I can't think of any animal above insect that I would want to get rid of.
     
  13. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    Please give it some thought.
     
  14. NeilBlanchard

    NeilBlanchard Well-Known Member

    We are probably seeing a sixth major extinction, right now. I highly recommend reading "The Sixth Extinction" by Elizabeth Kolbert; and also her earlier book "Field Notes From a Catastrophe". Both are written documentaries, with her reporting along side scientists.

    http://sks.to/heat

    Another critical point is the speed of the change in the climate. We have jumped several million years in carbon dioxide levels in about 160 years. Almost half of that is just since 1980 or so (when we hit ~336ppm). It took ~130 years to raise it from ~270 to ~336, and in just the last 34 years to pass 402ppm.

    I find it just bizarre that climate change goes from being something we don't need to worry about to something we might as well give up on ...

    If we do not do as much as we possibly can to stop doing what we are doing to cause climate change - now that we know what we are doing - then our children and grandchildren will curse us.
     
  15. booferama

    booferama He who posts articles

    So here's a thought: these AGW forum threads probably don't convince or inform anyone all that much, as far as I can tell (from the people who post, anyway). So how about a reboot, a thread designed to inform and act as a forum for questions? Would that interest enough people to make doing it worthwhile?

    Here's what I see as the central questions to ask and answer:
    • What is AGW, and what is it not?
    • What is the evidence for AGW? How do we know it's real and man-caused?
    • Does the scientific consensus matter, and why?
    • What evidence is there against AGW?
    • What can we do about it?
    • What should we do about it?

    Ideally, in my mind anyway, the thread would go through these questions one by one. Any time someone makes a claim, it has to be backed up by evidence (usually in the form of a link).

    Thoughts about this?
     
  16. worthywads

    worthywads Don't Feel Like Satan, I am to AAA

    I'd read it, and try to contribute.

    Or we could just link to wattupwiththat for total coverage of the "facts". :eyebrow: ;)
     
  17. booferama

    booferama He who posts articles

    I guess it's just you and me.
     
  18. ALS

    ALS Super Moderator Staff Member

    Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the ‘Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science’

    BTW
    Apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2014
  19. seftonm

    seftonm Veteran Staff Member

    The planet was warmer in the past, therefore concern over climate change is nonsensical?

    [​IMG]
     
  20. ksstathead

    ksstathead Moderator

    In the period of human existence...

    If he would just preface his thoughts with this minor detail, he would immediately reverse his conclusions...

    Wow. Just wow.
     

Share This Page