I Suppose

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Fri Nov 15, 2013 5:48 pm

Yes, and you realize that 20 years ago the planet was cooler than it is now? 20 years before that it was cooler? and 20 years before that? :hammer: Comeon' guys, have at least a general idea of what you're talking about before you open your..er..type on your keyboard.
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon


Re: I Suppose

Postby boney fingers » Fri Nov 15, 2013 6:35 pm

Ill be in New York next week, Ill check and see if it is under water yet like they said it would be .
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:01 pm

whistlingwings wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:
whistlingwings wrote: It has been proven thousands of times; you can make a miniature greenhouse in your back yard, pump it full of CO2, and see the basic mechanism at work.


Well, since it has been done thousands of times, then surely these climate experts are not conducting the same experiment over and over. And why would they pump it full of CO2 when CO2 is such a minuscule part of our atmosphere. That would be of no value.

To put a real experiment into practice, which would be a waste of time, you need one greenhouse with 00.035% CO2 and 99.956% controlled substance compared to another greenhouse with 00.04% CO2 and 99.96% of the same controlled substance. Keep in mind, this is not 4%, but 4/100ths of one percent. If you are correct, you will measure an increase in temperature based upon the 00.005% (5/1000ths of one percent) difference in CO2. Let us know how that turns out.



Yes, if you have a very sensitive temperature gauge, you will measure a very small increase. Remember Earth is warming at .2C per *decade*, which by my math, oh, somewhere around .02C per year.

It blows my mind that folks who understand 400ppm = .0004 = .04% = 4/100ths can't comprehend the very basic, proven science of greenhouse gases absorbing and emitting.


What blows my mind is the ignorance of anyone who that believes a single thing can change global temperature with the millions of other things that also impact it. The very idea is laughable.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby cartervj » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:37 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:
whistlingwings wrote: It has been proven thousands of times; you can make a miniature greenhouse in your back yard, pump it full of CO2, and see the basic mechanism at work.


Well, since it has been done thousands of times, then surely these climate experts are not conducting the same experiment over and over. And why would they pump it full of CO2 when CO2 is such a minuscule part of our atmosphere. That would be of no value.

To put a real experiment into practice, which would be a waste of time, you need one greenhouse with 00.035% CO2 and 99.956% controlled substance compared to another greenhouse with 00.04% CO2 and 99.96% of the same controlled substance. Keep in mind, this is not 4%, but 4/100ths of one percent. If you are correct, you will measure an increase in temperature based upon the 00.005% (5/1000ths of one percent) difference in CO2. Let us know how that turns out.



Yes, if you have a very sensitive temperature gauge, you will measure a very small increase. Remember Earth is warming at .2C per *decade*, which by my math, oh, somewhere around .02C per year.

It blows my mind that folks who understand 400ppm = .0004 = .04% = 4/100ths can't comprehend the very basic, proven science of greenhouse gases absorbing and emitting.


What blows my mind is the ignorance of anyone who that believes a single thing can change global temperature with the millions of other things that also impact it. The very idea is laughable.


Ain't that the truth :lol3:

but Obama has super powers :biggrin:
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby cartervj » Fri Nov 15, 2013 8:53 pm

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/15/author-says-some-are-desperate-to-believe-in-global-warming-for-this-reason/

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed, said that some people’s belief in man-made global warming goes back to the same “long-proved human instinct” to assign blame that led to witch trials throughout history.

“Previously, when the crops failed, leading to famine, babies died…you’d blame the witch next door, throw her on the fire,” Horner said on The Glenn Beck Program. “Now, it’s when these catastrophes occur.”

The author told Stu Burguiere, who was filling in for Glenn Beck, that it is “tiresome” when such individuals “do this ritual in response to every blizzard or heat wave,” and “disgusting or sick” when man-made global warming is consistently blamed for natural catastrophes.

Author Chris Horner Explains Why Some Are Desperate to Believe in Global Warming
Author Christopher Horner speaks with Stu Burguiere on The Glenn Beck Program Nov. 15, 2013. (Photo: TheBlaze TV)
But Horner argued that there are different reasons people feel so strongly about the issue, and that for some, it simply comes down to “desperation.”

“Obviously when the spaceship that they either promised or were promised continues to not show up, or the comet continues to not come by, doomsday remains elusive, they’re grabbing anything that floats by,” he said.

But for others, Horner said that man-made global warming “affirms (their) worldview” that “modernity, whatever it is, wealth is horrible.”

The two also discussed the back-story behind the often-repeated line that “the science is settled,” and Horner said that in some cases, those climate change “experts” have included “hotel administrators, experts in ancient Chinese healing techniques, (and) gynecologists.”

The bottom line, the author argued, is if those who believe that man-made global warming had a real argument, “they’d make it, and…they’d stick with it.”

“They wouldn’t bounce between drought, rain, hot, cold, snow, no snow, warming, weather, climate, jobs, the French will like us (to prove their point),” Horner remarked. “They’d make their case.”
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Nov 16, 2013 8:15 am

ScaupHunter wrote:What blows my mind is the ignorance of anyone who that believes a single thing can change global temperature with the millions of other things that also impact it. The very idea is laughable.

So putting insulation on the roof would not increase the temperature if you ran the furnance in exactly the same way? :huh:

Of course more CO2 raises the global average temperature. It is the simplest of physics. The question is how important. Just like your house, what fraction of the heat goes through the roof? If you live in a barn, it will be imperceptible. If you live in a house that is well insulated and people don't leave the doors open, etc. It could be quite noticeable.

The problem is that the furnace (the sun) is not constant. The doors left open are not constant (El Nino/La Nina, etc. that enhance heat transfer to space and especially surface air temperatures). There are negative feedbacks, especially cloud cover. On and on, but it is a simple fact that more CO2 is more infrared radiation insulation. Add more of it and it absolutely positively changes the global average temperature. It may be imperceptible and it may be significant. That is the question that is so difficult to answer and these so-called scientist treat like it is easy.

Your an engineer. You know the saying. ALL models are wrong. SOME are useful. They act like their models are not wrong and therefore have no doubt of their usefulness. This is either fraud or incompetence. But if you are an activist and not a scientist, you do like Obama and say things that are not true and that you have no doubt about it. If you like it, you can keep it. PERIOD. And then later change your tune and pretend like you are still credible. That's the thing I find incredible about those that treat these guy like they are a herd in near unanimous agreement. About what? It's so complex that this level of agreement in such a new field is ridiculous.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:15 am

SpinnerMan wrote:So putting insulation on the roof would not increase the temperature if you ran the furnance in exactly the same way? :huh:


But the earths "furnace" is on the wrong side of the "insulation" for this example to work. Take all the insulation out of your attic and see how hot it gets in your house when the summer sun is beating on it.

Though it probably isn't much, I've often wondered how much effect the heat output of millions of running car engine has on the model. Figure that the average car engine runs at a normal operating temperature of around 200 degrees. That is a lot of btu's being introduced beneath our "insulation" layer.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3649
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Nov 16, 2013 12:19 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:So putting insulation on the roof would not increase the temperature if you ran the furnance in exactly the same way? :huh:


But the earths "furnace" is on the wrong side of the "insulation" for this example to work. Take all the insulation out of your attic and see how hot it gets in your house when the summer sun is beating on it.

Though it probably isn't much, I've often wondered how much effect the heat output of millions of running car engine has on the model. Figure that the average car engine runs at a normal operating temperature of around 200 degrees. That is a lot of btu's being introduced beneath our "insulation" layer.

No it is not. Think of a green house. The glass is the insulation and the sun is the furnace, but provides the heat by radiating it through the glass and it being absorbed on the inside (sort of like a steam system that produces the heat elsewhere and transmits it to the radiators in your building). Very thin glass and the heat transmits through it more easily and the temperature difference maintained across the glass is small. Very thick glass and the heat doesn't transmits through the glass as easily and the temperature difference maintained across the glass is larger.

Same thing for the earth. The natural greenhouse effect from the CO2 and H2O vapor is quite substantial and we would be quite cold if not for it. However, just like insulation, there are diminishing returns as you pile more and more.

And then there are all the feedback effects that mitigate any enhancing to the natural greenhouse effect from the higher CO2 and other greenhouse gases such as the impact of clouds. Just like your statement about the roof, we all know that when there are clouds, the sun doesn't heat the earth nearly as much. Water vapor is a good greenhouse gas. Water droplets in clouds is a very good reflector. A small increase in cloud cover and a lot of CO2 is offset. Also, storms are very effective at taking the heat from the surface and transporting it higher in the atmosphere bypassing a lot of CO2 if it is transmitted via infrared transmission. This is why it cools down when it rains. You've taken energy from the earth's surface and used it to evaporate water and when that water condenses up in the atmosphere it releases that energy and when the rain falls the energy remains up in the atmosphere. This is why places like Washington state have a cooler wet side of the mountain and a higher dry side of the mountain. As the air moves up, the water condenses and deposits its energy while leaving the water on the wet side and when the air moves down the backside, the energy remains but the water is gone so it is hotter and drier.

These effects are so amazingly localized relative to the scale of the earth. I don't even know how you would get the kind of data you would need to feed into a global model to account for all the small impacts on all these phenomenon. They can't predict the cloud cover a week out, but they have it nailed down decades :no: They by necessity have to embed so many assumptions and that doesn't even account for the unknowable future variation in solar intensity that can easily dwarf any impact.

Simple physics - it is warmer!

Incredibly complex physics - how much and what are the consequences? My opinion is not that much and not that dramatic

Incredibly complex economics and a crystal ball - what will it cost to mitigate those consequences? My opinion is a hell of a lot and it will never happen because of China.

Subjective value judgment - is it worth the cost? My opinion is that it is not even close to worth it and the harm from mitigating it will far exceed the most realistic assessment that I have seen.

Yes technically it is warmer, but it probably doesn't matter and the cure is almost surely more harmful than the disease. For too many it is a religion that there is no, absolutely zero, man-made warming. They are wrong. For too many it is a religion that if there is any man-made warming, it must be stopped. They are wrong. It's purely become a left versus right debate, especially the activist right and the control-freak left.

The irony is that for totally different reasons I would really like to see a low carbon future. Carbon based fuels are dirty and dangerous. They are getting better, but coal mining will never be safe and clean. Same for oil. Natural gas on the other hand is vastly superior and I can't make a case that it is worse than nuclear, so frack on :thumbsup:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby ScaupHunter » Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:42 pm

Two major factors in the earths warming are development of natural vegetation into paved and roofed surfaces, and the location of many of the thermal tracking systems being set over paved surfaces. The last one has all ready been covered in other threads. The first is huge. As we deforest and change to farms and grasslands we increase global temperatures and CO2 emissions. Then pave much of the areas you deforest with asphalt concrete and roofing and you have dramatic increases in localized temperatures. Them stick your temperature tracking systems in those areas. There are way to many factors to blame global warming on CO2. Spinner is right. No matter what we do China will out produce the changes we make.
Bella's
Decoy Setting Pro Staff
Boat Operator Pro Staff
Duck Shooting Pro Staff
Warm Towel Pro Staff
Snack Supply Pro Staff

He works for free! Who's the B now?
User avatar
ScaupHunter
hunter
 
Posts: 6702
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 5:57 am

Re: I Suppose

Postby waterfowlman » Sat Nov 16, 2013 3:56 pm

ScaupHunter wrote:Two major factors in the earths warming are development of natural vegetation into paved and roofed surfaces, and the location of many of the thermal tracking systems being set over paved surfaces. The last one has all ready been covered in other threads. The first is huge. As we deforest and change to farms and grasslands we increase global temperatures and CO2 emissions. Then pave much of the areas you deforest with asphalt concrete and roofing and you have dramatic increases in localized temperatures. Them stick your temperature tracking systems in those areas. There are way to many factors to blame global warming on CO2. Spinner is right. No matter what we do China will out produce the changes we make.


Bingo.
A friend just returned from Beijing and said the smog was so bad they didn't even leave their hotel a couple of days. China is building something like one coal fired power plant per week.
Pictured is Beijing mid-day.
Attachments
BeijingSmog.png
BeijingSmog.png (95.89 KiB) Viewed 267 times
Rule Number One: Always use a sledge hammer to kill an ant.
User avatar
waterfowlman
SIR
 
Posts: 4348
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:35 pm
Location: Eastern Shore of Virginia

Re: I Suppose

Postby bayside » Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:10 pm

Until I get a credible answer for the Medieval Optimum from "climate changers", I will continue to disregard their opinions of environmental issues.

Let's steer this sled back toward Assa's original question of Why is the Tea party vilified? I personally believe that most people are ill informed of the nature of constitution and its implication for power of the FEDERAL govt vs state's responsibilities, and merely mimic the popular media (stewart or tina fey) or they are beholden to some form of govt largesse and thus threatened by a containment of the federal fisc.
bayside
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:21 am
Location: Down Jersey

Re: I Suppose

Postby cartervj » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:10 pm

bayside wrote:Until I get a credible answer for the Medieval Optimum from "climate changers", I will continue to disregard their opinions of environmental issues.

Let's steer this sled back toward Assa's original question of Why is the Tea party vilified? I personally believe that most people are ill informed of the nature of constitution and its implication for power of the FEDERAL govt vs state's responsibilities, and merely mimic the popular media (stewart or tina fey) or they are beholden to some form of govt largesse and thus threatened by a containment of the federal fisc.



Cause the more times the Liberals and the MSM repeat it, the more traction they feel it gains, sadly it works to gain the low information voters. It's all about who controls the message.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby clampdaddy » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:13 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:So putting insulation on the roof would not increase the temperature if you ran the furnance in exactly the same way? :huh:


But the earths "furnace" is on the wrong side of the "insulation" for this example to work. Take all the insulation out of your attic and see how hot it gets in your house when the summer sun is beating on it.

Though it probably isn't much, I've often wondered how much effect the heat output of millions of running car engine has on the model. Figure that the average car engine runs at a normal operating temperature of around 200 degrees. That is a lot of btu's being introduced beneath our "insulation" layer.

No it is not. Think of a green house. The glass is the insulation and the sun is the furnace, but provides the heat by radiating it through the glass and it being absorbed on the inside (sort of like a steam system that produces the heat elsewhere and transmits it to the radiators in your building). Very thin glass and the heat transmits through it more easily and the temperature difference maintained across the glass is small. Very thick glass and the heat doesn't transmits through the glass as easily and the temperature difference maintained across the glass is larger......

Makes sense.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3649
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: I Suppose

Postby bayside » Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:45 am

cartervj wrote:Cause the more times the Liberals and the MSM repeat it, the more traction they feel it gains, sadly it works to gain the low information voters. It's all about who controls the message.


True enough, but why does the tea party not have better spokesmen to "spread the gospel" as it were. Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and yes, Sarah Palin all have a gift for communicating the message to the citizenry. Ultimately tho they are marginalized or ostrasized, by both the lib media and increasingly by rino republicans. Hence my conclusion that most folks have a vested interest in continuing the federal flow of money. Examine your own life and seek to find where you are supported by some type of govt aid. And yes it may not be "welfare" but it is hidden and insidious. The system has been setup to spread the tax money around and ensare as many as possible. Example: Federal gas taxes. We all benefit by having modern roads. But why must we have federal involvement (aside from the interstate system, and at this point it is maintained at state level). So why engage in a mafia racket to collect a federal tax, wash it through DC then back to the states? Education: Govt has taken over the college loan program and given the price of post HS education, most are now dependent upon "help" from the govt.
Unfortunately, I think until the tea party can recruit better candidates to explain why govt "help" is corrosive and more importantly, withstand the fusillades from all sides, it is doomed to be a marginal presence.
bayside
hunter
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2012 8:21 am
Location: Down Jersey

Re: I Suppose

Postby cartervj » Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:53 am

Had a conversation the other day like you mentioned. A guy in forestry was saying he hated how farmers complain about welfare folks. I said kinda like forestry guys mentioning other government subsidized programs. There are many piglets on the teats of the federal government. Like he said, it's his job to get any and all money for his clients. The federal government has imbedded itself in all aspects of everyones life.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7357
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: I Suppose

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:08 am

bayside wrote:why does the tea party not have better spokesmen to "spread the gospel" as it were.
Because they are not a political party. They are a popular political movement. The downside of spontaneous popular movements like the Tea Party is that anybody can claim to be "the" spokesman and those opposed to the movement can also claim that any individual is representative of the movement no matter how absurd (see any number of slow's posts).

ScaupHunter wrote:Two major factors in the earths warming are development of natural vegetation into paved and roofed surfaces, and the location of many of the thermal tracking systems being set over paved surfaces. The last one has all ready been covered in other threads. The first is huge. As we deforest and change to farms and grasslands we increase global temperatures and CO2 emissions. Then pave much of the areas you deforest with asphalt concrete and roofing and you have dramatic increases in localized temperatures. Them stick your temperature tracking systems in those areas. There are way to many factors to blame global warming on CO2. Spinner is right. No matter what we do China will out produce the changes we make.


The heat island effect, which is what you are describing, is now well known. The quality datasets correct for that. It's not easy and it's certaintly not lacking uncertainty, but this was an old error that is dealt with.

Most of the earth is water and very little of the land is paved. I don't think it is much of an effect on the global average temperature. It does however have a significant effect on the measurements taken near growing population centers which is where a large fractions of the measurements are taken, generally at the airport. The airport was initially built out in the country, but with time the city grows and surrounds it. This biases the temperature measurements.

This correction of datasets are the perfect job for graduate students, particularly and M.S. student. It seems like a lot of this has been done. This is part of why the predicted warming has been reduced. I do believe that most of this error has been corrected, but I don't know for sure because this is such a core piece of basic data and there will be a very small set of experts that truly have solid knowledge. Not to mention that going from raw data to adjusted data that there is always going to be debate about the correct adjustment to be made and with time that evolve a bit, but I think most of the adjustments have been made and probably capture the majority of the error in the raw data.

BTW, this is something that is a big part of using basic nuclear data. On the plus side we can create complex benchmark experiments and know how close we are to the correct answer. And there are some cases where we are not very close :eek: So we don't build things that look like that, but they are academic exercises basically intended to crush your models by concentrating the reaction in the energy regime where things are extremely complex. As an engineer, you design it to stay out of that regime. With climatologists, there are no ways to design representative integral experiments. Even with humans, you can design drug experiments and other experiments.

It seems too much like a bunch of big egos that think they know the answer and have no doubt and control much of the journals and granted money. The up and comer scientists need journal articles and grant money and they know where their bread is buttered even if they are not committing fraud (there is a reason double blind studies are necessary and it would be great if we could do that on all scientific studies). They are supported by a bunch of paranoid anti-human so-called environments that like the doomsday predictions. Then there are a bunch control-freak politicians and bureaucrats that love the power they think it justifies and a lot of well-intended people that do not understand the science or the politics that are inherently part of science.

I happened to run into my Congresswoman at the airport a few years ago. I was waiting for a plane sitting on the floor working on my computer. I stand up to go to the restroom before we board and I here one person in the group say "I wish that we could get politics out of science." Me being me, I interject that politics has always been a part of science and planned on going on my merry way. They engaged me about what I did and we talk a little while. And then her chief of staff asked if I recognized this woman. :huh: Yep, she looks familiar. She then told me who she was and gave me her card. Glad I didn't say anything stupid. Hey, I need government money too :biggrin:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 16293
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: I Suppose

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:23 am

whistlingwings wrote:2.) Of course, unemployment numbers are fake. That's the only explanation. Is the stock market, DJIA fake too? Because as I'm sure you know those are up quite a bit.

I short-yes, the gains are fake. They are fueled by 85 billion a month QE from the treasury and some of that is direct purchases of stocks through primary dealers.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:30 am

vincentpa wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:
So you found less than 3% of studies that show global warming is not manmade. 97% show that it is. I'll stick with the 97%, you guys keep playing the lottery. And actually yes, scientists also agree it is catastrophic warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, most recent warning: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming


97% number is bogus. There was a lengthy thread on this. You'll just look like a fool if you keep harping on it.

Who is this new guy whistlingwings??? I had to look close because for a minute I thought it was my friend in texas, but this guy is in Oregon. He is not worth my time to address any of his drivel.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:32 am

whistlingwings wrote:SpinnerMan -- in regards to your "how bad is global warming?" question, read this: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... al-warming

The scientific community is in agreement that it will be very very bad if we do not reduce emissions. Sorry, but I trust the guys that study climate science every day (I hunt with one of them) more than I trust anyone that says "well it's just a LITTLE warmer, what's the harm?"

If you want a specific number - 2 degrees Celsius. This 2 degrees does not mean that in your town it will only be 2 degrees warmer. This is a global average. And a global average of 2 degrees C increase in temp will cause major major changes to our climate system, even when run in the most conservative simulations. Bird migrations are already being affected: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142642.htm

WOW! :lol3: :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:53 am

Rat Creek wrote:This is why it is called the Church of Global Warming. :bow: :bow: :bow: You just have to believe it based upon faith and little else.

So since 1960, and assuming we can accurately measure an entire planet's constantly changing atmosphere down to one part per million :eek: , it is estimated that CO2 has increased by 50 parts per million to roughly 400 parts per million. About ONE part per MILLION per YEAR. Oh, the humanity. :crying: Let's put that in number format as it stands today.

CO2: .0004
Everything else: .9996

I would display it in a pie chart but they have not invented monitors with enough pixels to see the CO2 part of it. :hi:

Yes, it is obvious what is causing the warming...er...cooling...er...change. It cannot possibly be that really bright shiny hot thing in the sky that causes the daytime temps to rise A LOT, and nighttime temps to drop A LOT. You know that thing that makes it 90 degrees in the summer and 10 degrees in the winter. That thing can have no bearing on temperature swings because we know the Sun's output is constant and never fluctuating. It must be something else. :fingerhead:

By the way, I am not an engineer, but I am an excellent cook and do the chicken dance at weddings. Just wanted you to have my credentials. :rolleyes:

You just have to suspend logic and want to believe. :bow: :bow: :bow:

I gotta post my favorite cartoon...
Image
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:57 am

"Beware of Prophets seeking Profits."
Hey ww........Who Profits off global warming? :hi: dig into that a little.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby boney fingers » Sun Nov 17, 2013 4:48 pm

cartervj wrote:Had a conversation the other day like you mentioned. A guy in forestry was saying he hated how farmers complain about welfare folks. I said kinda like forestry guys mentioning other government subsidized programs. There are many piglets on the teats of the federal government. Like he said, it's his job to get any and all money for his clients. The federal government has imbedded itself in all aspects of everyones life.



Unfortunately once these government programs become built into the price structure, often times you can not survive without them. The farm bill not only affects farmers directly, it also indirectly affects consumers in the way of cheaper prices. Not only are farmers addicted to subsidies, consumers are addicted to cheap food. Education is another area where people have become all to comfortable with government money supporting not only the education of their children but also the entertainment of them (sports, activities, clubs, ect...) All these things come with a price and sooner or latter a government will hold them over our heads, the government shutdown was a perfect example of this.
boney fingers
hunter
 
Posts: 860
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:21 am

Indaswamp wrote:"Beware of Prophets seeking Profits."
Hey ww........Who Profits off global warming? :hi: dig into that a little.


Great question, mr. forum moderator. Do you think climatologists on fixed university salaries or fossil fuel (oil) companies profit more? Tough, tough question :eek:
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

Re: I Suppose

Postby Indaswamp » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:22 am

whistlingwings wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:"Beware of Prophets seeking Profits."
Hey ww........Who Profits off global warming? :hi: dig into that a little.


Great question, mr. forum moderator. Do you think climatologists on fixed university salaries or fossil fuel (oil) companies profit more? Tough, tough question :eek:

:lol3: ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 58093
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: I Suppose

Postby whistlingwings » Mon Nov 18, 2013 10:35 am

Indaswamp wrote:
whistlingwings wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:"Beware of Prophets seeking Profits."
Hey ww........Who Profits off global warming? :hi: dig into that a little.


Great question, mr. forum moderator. Do you think climatologists on fixed university salaries or fossil fuel (oil) companies profit more? Tough, tough question :eek:

:lol3: ask yourself exactly where those climatologists get their funding and HOW they go about getting it...


If you really, really believe that climatologists who make average professor salaries, and always will, have more to gain by lying about their findings (thus ruining their reputations and careers once we do know 100% what is going on) than multi-billion dollar companies....including BOTH co2 dependent companies (oil companies) and clean energy (solar, wind, etc)....hmmmm
Nobody cares about your season totals. Especially if you pay to hunt private.
whistlingwings
hunter
 
Posts: 255
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 8:23 pm
Location: Oregon

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests