# Playing Dumb on Climate Change - Scientists are doing us no favor by being so cautious



## Josiah (Jan 4, 2015)

A very interesting opinion piece in today's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/o...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 4, 2015)

I believe that climate change has always been occurring, and it is cyclical, although there has been some deliberate weather manipulation involved also.  From what I understand, the climate may be in a cooling cycle.  Here's some related articles if anyone is interested in reading them.


http://www.americaspace.com/?p=21726


http://www.collective-evolution.com...ata-suggestss-global-warming-is-not-man-made/


http://spaceandscience.net/index.html


http://www.express.co.uk/news/natur...rming-not-real-claims-weather-channel-founder


Weather manipulation/Geo-engineering:  http://weatherwars.info/


http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/hold-smugness-tesla-might-just-worse-environment-know/


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017704/full


----------



## Josiah (Jan 4, 2015)

The headline in your 2nd link states 420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made, If At All

But nowhere in the article does it mention that at no time in the last 420,000 years has the CO2 level been anywhere near as high as it is today.


----------



## Debby (Jan 4, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I believe that climate change has always been occurring, and it is cyclical, although there has been some deliberate weather manipulation involved also.  From what I understand, the climate may be in a cooling cycle.  Here's some related articles if anyone is interested in reading them........





Sorry, haven't actually looked at your links so far, but here's a question that occurred to me as I read your comment SeaBreeze.  If the climate is in a cooling cycle now, why is more of the Arctic Ocean open?  Why are the polar icecaps melting and the sea ice disappearing so that polar bears are beginning to suffer because they can't adjust fast enough to the changes?  Maybe in your reading you've come across an explanation for those situations?


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 4, 2015)

It's definitely not cooling south of the equator. Quite the reverse.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 4, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> A very interesting opinion piece in today's New York Times.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/o...p-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region



Good article.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 4, 2015)

Climate Change, and Earths warming and cooling cycles have been part of this planets history.  However, in the past, there weren't 7 billion humans contributing to these phenomenon.  Most people realize that our climate is changing, even the "Deniers".  The question They bring up is whether this warming is human related.  I think that is a mute question, and a better discussion would be What are We going to do about it.  In the past, the few humans that were here could just fold their tents, and move North/South as the weather dictated.  We no longer have that option.  Nations have been meeting for several years, under the IPCC, but all they can agree on is where to hold next years meeting.  The majority of scientists give us only a couple of decades to make any appreciable difference, and That is highly unlikely to happen.  Besides fossil fuel emissions, Methane is becoming a real problem as permafrost and ocean locked ice begins to melt, plus the emissions of farm animals, are all putting Methane into the air...and it is bigger greenhouse gas than CO2.  Even if we all suddenly quit using All fuels and electricity, it is doubtful that we could halt this process.  

If half the predictions of the climate scientists come true, future generations will have some major challenges.  Rising oceans, and increasingly severe storms, etc., are going to change the lives of millions...maybe billions.  Many of our coastal cities will begin to look like Venice, and beachfront property will be available many miles inland from now.  One of the best, and most informative web sites that is following this issue closely can be found at http://www.climatecentral.org/.   This is perhaps the best source of ongoing coverage out there.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 5, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> The headline in your 2nd link states 420,000 Years of Data Suggests Global Warming is Not Entirely Man-Made, If At All
> But nowhere in the article does it mention that at no time in the last 420,000 years has the CO2 level been anywhere near as high as it is today.



I've read in a few different places that it has been higher in past history.  I also believe that natural causes have a much greater effect on Co2 levels, and human contribution is likely pretty insignificant.  From all I've heard, and I'm certainly no scientist or expert, it appears that 'global warming' was a crises that was created by manipulating some facts and numbers, and it was done for political/money reasons.



> When the earth was in its infancy, some four-and-a half billion years ago, it is believed that the atmosphere was predominantly composed of carbon dioxide, which would have put its CO2 concentration, in terms of the units most commonly used today, at something on the order of 1,000,000 ppm.  Ever since, however, the CO2 content of the air - in the mean - has been dropping.
> 
> By 500 million years ago, in fact, the atmosphere's CO2 concentration is estimated to have fallen to only 20 times more than it is today, or something on the order of 7500 ppm; and by 300 million years ago, it had declined to close to the air's current CO2 concentration of 370 ppm, after which it rose to about five times where it now stands at 220 million years before present (Berner 1990, 1992, 1993, 1997; Kasting 1993).
> 
> ...







Debby said:


> If the climate is in a cooling cycle now, why is more of the Arctic Ocean open?  Why are the polar icecaps melting and the sea ice disappearing so that polar bears are beginning to suffer because they can't adjust fast enough to the changes?  Maybe in your reading you've come across an explanation for those situations?



There's lots of information about polar bears and arctic ice here if interested, I don't know if all the info about arctic ice melting and polar bears suffering because of it is true, or Co2 related. 




> This week, Arctic sea ice in Canada, where 2/3 of the world’s polar bears live, had more sea ice than was present in the early 1970s. Globally, the ice is spitting-distance close to the 1981-2010 average calculated by the NSIDC for this date – which means lots of winter/spring hunting habitat for polar bears.





> http://polarbearscience.com/2014/12...-ice-in-canada-this-week-than-in-early-1970s/








> There has been a 29 per cent increase in the amount of ocean covered with ice compared to this time last year, the equivalent of 533,000 square miles.
> 
> In a rebound from 2012's record low, an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe already stretches from the Canadian islands to Russia's northern shores, days before the annual re-freeze is even set to begin.
> 
> ...





Thoughts and info here on 'climategate':
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php#axzz3Nu0hAmYR


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 5, 2015)

​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

SeaBreeze, the first article you posted comes from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide that is sponsored by The Heartland Institute that is sponsored by Oil Companies and the Koch Bros. among others.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 5, 2015)

I understand Jackie, but it's hard to get both sides of the story from an unbiased source.  Articles which support the theory of the man-made global warming crisis also have their particular interests at heart, and utilize/sway their 'studies' and findings to support their particular beliefs or agendas.


----------



## Josiah (Jan 5, 2015)

Tell me SeaBreeze who's getting rich by promoting the idea that climate change is caused for the most part by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Where is the payoff? What motive beyond alerting people to an inconvenient truth is there?


----------



## Debby (Jan 6, 2015)

Dame Warrigal said:


> It's definitely not cooling south of the equator. Quite the reverse.





I saw on a news channel 'ticker' that Australia is in the midst (not sure of your seasons there) of the third of it's hottest summers on record.  Would you go along with that Dame?  How hot has it been there?


----------



## Debby (Jan 6, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> ​
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute
> 
> SeaBreeze, the first article you posted comes from the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide that is sponsored by The Heartland Institute that is sponsored by Oil Companies and the Koch Bros. among others.




It always pays to check who is writing articles or sponsoring the website.

 And SeaBreeze, I looked at your polar bear link and saw the following:  " am a different kind of polar bear expert than those that study bears in the field" .  So does this mean she only reads other peoples studies and if so how unbiased is she in choosing the ones she'll accept?

She also indicates that there is no problem with bear numbers and that climate and ice changes are having little impact, but then in doing a Google search I came across any number of sites that suggest otherwise.  Like this National Geographic site for one:  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...-bears-arctic-warming-animals-science-alaska/   which is titled:  Polar Bear Numbers Plummeting in Alaska, Canada - What About the Rest?

After reading several sites, I get the impression that it's safe to say that there is no real consensus on bear numbers and the impacts of a warming ocean.

Considering that a tv news report this morning said that Australia is having the third hottest summer in a row, on record, I think that the effort for an over abundant human population to minimize our effect on the planet is definitely not misguided.  After all, what we do today, our great grandchildren will be dealing with when we're long gone.  And I think the minute you convince 'the population' that humans don't have an impact, the environmental destruction will accelerate exponentially.  So unless you're a Koch brother, it would seem that the wisest strategy for continuation of life is to encourage people to care in every instance for their 'footprint'.
[h=1][/h]


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 6, 2015)

Debby said:


> I saw on a news channel 'ticker' that Australia is in the midst (not sure of your seasons there) of the third of it's hottest summers on record.  Would you go along with that Dame?  How hot has it been there?



Haven't got the stats but month after month in 2014 we heard that this month was a record breaker for maximum temperatures, and heat waves were lasting longer. This, when we have been in a La Nina situation. God help us when the Southern Oscillation Index tips over into El Nino.

I'll see if I can find some stats for you.


This site shows graphs of various climate indicators from 1910 to present that you can trawl through.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/


----------



## Ralphy1 (Jan 6, 2015)

Our great tennis players can take the heat there, so don't be wimpy about it...


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 6, 2015)

Its not only Australia....its everywhere.

What makes setting the record for hottest year in 2014 doubly impressive is that it occurred despite the fact we’re still waiting for the start of El Niño. But this is what happens when a species keeps spewing record amounts of heat-trapping carbon pollution into the air, driving CO2 to levels in the air not seen for millions of years, when the planet was far hotter and sea levels tens of feet higher.


[FONT=Open Sans, Calibri, Trebuchet MS, Lucida Sans, Arial, sans-serif]http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/01/05/3607735/2014-hottest-year-by-far/[/FONT]


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 6, 2015)

A video discussing recent high temperature records.

http://media.smh.com.au/video-news/video-national-news/2014-heat-what-does-it-all-mean-6141525.html


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Tell me SeaBreeze who's getting rich by promoting the idea that climate change is caused for the most part by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Where is the payoff? What motive beyond alerting people to an inconvenient truth is there?



That was MY thought.  Who profits.. the wind turbine companies?  the solar panel companies?  Perhaps.. but not on the scale Big oil profits by trying to convince people fossil fuels do not destroy the atmosphere..  I don't see an "agenda" beyond wanting to keep the planet.. oh.. and humans.. alive.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

To all our good friends in Florida and Louisiana...please head for higher ground..  To Rick Scott and Bobby Jindal?....  are you good at treading water?  lol!


----------



## Jackie22 (Jan 6, 2015)

[h=1]Kochs and Walmart Clan Wage Dirty War to Stop You From Putting Solar Panels on Your Home[/h]A new rooftop solar system is installed every three minutes in the U.S., up from one every 80 minutes just eight short years ago. If this pace continues to accelerate or even just holds steady, it will not be long before solar panels become visible, if not ubiquitous, in many neighborhoods nationwide. 

That prospect is enough to upset the Koch brothers, the heirs of the Walmart fortune and the utility industry, all which are trying to stamp out the rooftop solar movement or at least make a tidy profit penalizing the people who use it. With the help of powerful lobbyists and PACs like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, they are set to do battle in statehouses across the nation in 2015. 

ALEC, which has long been an opponent of renewable energy and the Obama administration’s effort to reduce carbon emissions, is working with conservative activists and corporate interests to fight homeowners who are installing solar panels on their roofs. Calling people who install rooftop solar panel “freeriders,” another word for freeloaders, the pro-corporate group is actively promoting legislation in states to charge fees, even exorbitant ones, for rooftop solar installations. 

Behind the lobbyists are the megarich Walton family. The majority owners of the Walmart retail chain also own several energy interests, including a 30% stake in First Solar, which makes the parts for huge commerical installations of solar panels that operate like power plants. A recent report by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance shows that the Waltons are giving lobbyist organizations millions to attack renewable energy laws at the state level. Their prime targets are the homeowners and businesses that opt for solar panels to provide their own electricity.


http://www.alternet.org/environment/koch-and-wal-marts-attempt-kill-solar-panels


........speaking of Solar Panels.


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)




----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 6, 2015)

Josiah09 said:


> Tell me SeaBreeze who's getting rich by promoting the idea that climate change is caused for the most part by humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Where is the payoff? What motive beyond alerting people to an inconvenient truth is there?



Beside the obvious, Al Gore, I understand that the Koch brothers (and Monsanto) also profit greatly from ethanol plants.  The big corporations who make "eco-friendly cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, wireless "smart" meters, etc.  All these things have very little benefit on the health of the planet or the people, and there is great profits made from the costs of all these things.



> There are also some geopolitical concerns surrounding the switch from gasoline-powered vehicles to EVs, too. One of the selling points of EVs is that they allow us end our dependence on foreign oil and big oil companies. In fact, however, we might just be trading “big oil” in for “big lithium.”
> 
> Your Tesla may look sleek and clean on the outside, but you owe it to everyone to know the real cost.
> 
> ...






> CFL bulbs contains other cancer-causing chemicals as well. German scientists found that several different chemicals and toxins were released when CFLs are turned on, including naphthalene (which has been linked to cancer in animals) and styrene (which has been declared “a likely human carcinogen”). A sort of electrical smog develops around these lamps, which could be dangerous.
> 
> CFLs are supposedly better for the environment, but according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 98% of CFLs end up in landfills—creating a mercury build-up that can escape into our soil and waterways.
> 
> ...






> The World Health Organization classifies RF as a 2B carcinogen, same as DDT and lead.  Military studies here and here show pulsed radiation can cause serious health problems, including tinnitus, memory loss and seizures. Thousands of studies link biological effects to RF radiation exposure, including increased cancer risk, damage to the nervous system, adverse reproductive effects, DNA damage, and more.   The top public health official in Santa Cruz County California prepared this report, confirming Smart Meters pose a health risk. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) sent this letter to the CPUC calling for a halt to wireless smart meters.
> 
> http://emfsafetynetwork.org/smart-meters/






> E85 is often heralded as a way to reduce air pollution. Since increasing concern about global warming has focused attention on greenhouse gases, we decided to track our carbon emissions during this test.
> 
> By relating our observed fuel economy to CO2 emission figures found in the EPA's Green Vehicle Guide we determined that our gasoline round trip produced 706.5 pounds of carbon dioxide. On E85, the CO2emissions came to 703.1 pounds.
> 
> ...


----------



## QuickSilver (Jan 6, 2015)

Al Gore profits from warning about global warming?   How?   As for the others... SHOULDN'T we be developing alternative energy?  Do you believe that wind turbines and solar panels should be produced and distributed for free?   This is capitalism Seabreeze...  Someone is going to make them and profit..  Is that wrong?    I would rather see people profit from this than OIL and COAL... and destroy the planet as well..


----------



## Don M. (Jan 6, 2015)

Ah, Yes...Ethanol.  A few years ago, it was being touted as the answer to the nations transportation energy needs, and it would be cheaper.  Those who bought the E85 cars, and started using this stuff, quickly found out that their mileage suffered by as much as 20%....so even though they paid a bit less, per gallon, their cost per mile actually went up.  The people I know who bought these vehicles have, for the most part, switched back to Gasoline.  5 or 6 years ago, many gas stations were putting in Ethanol pumps...now it is rare to find one.  The Only ones who seem to have benefited from Ethanol were the Corn farmers, and the Ethanol plant owners.  Along the way, they managed to drive food prices higher with their diversion of corn from food supplies to fuel supplies.  

As for incandescent bulbs, it appears that some in Congress have been working overtime to rescind the EPA rules on lighting.  There was a period, a year or two ago, when such bulbs were getting a bit hard to find.  Lately, the store shelves seem to be well stocked with incandescent bulbs....so I guess the tactic is working.  

Lithium needs some more research.  There have been reports of a couple of these Tesla cars going up in flames due to overheated batteries, and Boeing had to do some major reworking on the lithium batteries it was using in the new 787's....also bursting into flames.  That would NOT be good at 30,000 ft., over the Ocean.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 6, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> I understand Jackie, but it's hard to get both sides of the story from an unbiased source.  Articles which support the theory of the man-made global warming crisis also have their particular interests at heart, and utilize/sway their 'studies' and findings to support their particular beliefs or agendas.



That's for sure Seabreeze.

I don't know if it's just I remember my childhood wrong, but I feel strongly about the difference in our weather patterns just compared to 50 or 55 years ago.  I know I would actually have to do some reading to see if we had some of the weather back then, that we have now.  And there's that "catch 22", who can you get unbiased info from, hey, maybe Farmers Almanac!!


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 6, 2015)

Jackie22 said:


> *Kochs and Walmart Clan Wage Dirty War to Stop You From Putting Solar Panels on Your Home*
> 
> A new rooftop solar system is installed every three minutes in the U.S., up from one every 80 minutes just eight short years ago. If this pace continues to accelerate or even just holds steady, it will not be long before solar panels become visible, if not ubiquitous, in many neighborhoods nationwide.
> 
> ...



This really caught my eye because the building I am moving into in the near future is a new one (I think about a year old) and as you can see, it has solar panels.  This is housing for seniors with low-income.  I don't want people to know that about me because of the way some folks react about getting certain help like insurance, and lower rent.  But felt like I wanted to say something because California is evidently working hard to use these kinds of energy (Windmills, solar panels) and you can bet I'm for it because I'm for "save the planet".


----------



## Josiah (Jan 6, 2015)

Good for you Denise and good for California.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 6, 2015)

Oh thanks Josiah,

That was the first thing I asked about was those panels, I got way excited to get to live where they are being used!!


----------



## Don M. (Jan 6, 2015)

One of our Son-in-Laws is the Marketing Director for a rapidly growing solar energy company in the city.  Talking to him over the holidays, he says his company is booked solid for the next 18 months putting in large commercial installations.  He also says that with advancements coming in solar arrays, it may be financially practical for large numbers of home owners to get off the grid, by the end of this decade...and THAT has a lot of power companies worried.  In areas where there is abundant ongoing sunshine, the savings/costs are already almost there.  Here, where we often get several days of cloudy weather, the biggest problem is having enough battery storage to offset the overcast.  If battery technology catches up to solar capacity, the days of huge polluting power plants may be numbered.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 6, 2015)

Oh yeah Don, I bet those companies are freaking.  It should be interesting to see what goes down.  When I was traveling the US I saw lots of places with the windmills as well.  They aren't very attractive, not cool like the old style in Holland etc., but hey, who cares if it's better for saving the planet, and it's people.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 6, 2015)

There's a "belt" stretching from Central Nebraska, down to Northern Texas, where a mild breeze is a 20 MPH constant wind.  This provides a great opportunity for Wind Farms...especially in central Kansas.  There are already large numbers of wind farms in some of those areas....a massive one just west of Salina, KS.  Right now, these wind turbines are quite expensive, but as technology improves, both wind And solar might compete favorably with our current fossil fuel plants....and not much more than a decade or two down the road.  

If these fossil fuel plants, and their owners were thinking about the future, they would be investing heavily in these renewables....instead of spending billions on Fracking to open up new sources of natural gas.  

There is a massive solar farm, just a few miles outside of Las Vegas that, with future expansions scheduled, may rival the output of the Hoover Dam.  Such a power source may well be needed before many more years pass, as the lake level in Lake Mead continues to drop.


----------



## SeaBreeze (Jan 6, 2015)

nwlady said:


> I don't know if it's just I remember my childhood wrong, but I feel strongly about the difference in our weather patterns just compared to 50 or 55 years ago.  I know I would actually have to do some reading to see if we had some of the weather back then, that we have now.  And there's that "catch 22", who can you get unbiased info from, hey, maybe Farmers Almanac!!



There's been people playing with the weather through weather modification for many years now, and it continues today.  Now it's coming back to bite us. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...-that-deny-this-have-simple-not-investigated/  I have nothing against wind or solar power.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 6, 2015)

Yup, "weather modification" has been going on for at least the past 150 years.  It started seriously with the Industrial revolution, the advent of the coal fired steam engine, and the internal combustion engine.  Prior to that, most of the crap that floated into the atmosphere came from volcanic eruptions and forest fires.  We still have volcanoes and forest fires, but now we have untold thousands of power plants and probably a hundred million cars and trucks scattered across the planet.  Nature used to be able to take care of most of the CO2 pollution with the massive forests....before most of those were cleared for human habitat and farming.  Now, who knows how many different pollutants have soiled our atmosphere, and Nature no longer can keep things in balance.


----------



## Denise1952 (Jan 6, 2015)

SeaBreeze said:


> There's been people playing with the weather through weather modification for many years now, and it continues today.  Now it's coming back to bite us. http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/...-that-deny-this-have-simple-not-investigated/  I have nothing against wind or solar power.



Just setting off Atomic Bombs in the desert was enough to effect things people never thought they would.  And I don't even want to think about where all the hazardous waste is coming into play


----------

