Guns are like Climate change...

[stroo]

If you are wrong about climate change and we take the kind of actions that have been proposed, we impose enormous economic costs on our country and the world for nothing. A few years ago when we decided to use corn to make ethanol, the switch of production from food to fuel caused people to starve in Africa. The light bulb change and refrigerant changes have already cost this country and enormous amount. The EPA rules on coal are about to cause significant issues in energy. So if you are wrong on climate change and we take the actions proposed by the climate change proponents, it will have enormous implications.

[stroo]

Back to the original subject, what do scientist know about guns????

[C-dub]

The vast majority of scientists are not with you, and James Hansen is one of the perpetrators of the hoax.

So NASA is lying to me?

Yes! They have forced out, fired, or otherwise created a hostile working environment to get anyone that worked there that openly disagreed with them to leave. All the "science" used to fool people into accepting the computer model was based on biased and manipulated data. I've had this discussion multiple times with a liberal former friend of mine that still tows the line for BO. Why would the hoax change from "global warming" to "climate change"? Every weather pattern is blamed on "climate change" now because there is no warming and the climate will always change.

https://ricochet.com/archives/50-nasa-s ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And they also go after anyone else that disagrees to destroy their careers.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/ ... d-science/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And they are doing all this and more at Obama's direction. What business is it of NASA's whether Muslim's feel good about their contributions to anything?
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bo ... -stir.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[C-dub]

Back on point, right.

Liberal scientists know as much about guns as they do about global warming.

[Pawpaw]

Climate change is real. Our climate is always changing. Global warming is the hoax. Currently, the world is in a period of cooling.

Don't take my word for it...

[video][/video]

[ghostrider]

So NASA is lying to me? There are no less than 12 references cited.

possibly. Or possibly they're quoting/concluding/repeating flawed data or studies.

One can look at any number of controversial topics over the years and see this sort of thing. How many years have doctors been preaching that high cholesterol is really bad and that eating margarine (for example) was way healthier than butter. Turns out that may have all been based on a flawed study.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... evels.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://paleoleap.com/fear-of-saturated- ... olesterol/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... rease.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://authoritynutrition.com/top-9-big ... olesterol/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 ... 0760481486" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

now back to our regularly scheduled global warming/cooling/climate change discussion :-)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06 ... -and-noaa/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrar ... l-warming/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Is the Arctic ice really shrinking or growing?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... E-now.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.livescience.com/47883-2014-a ... xtent.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

If you are wrong about climate change and we take the kind of actions that have been proposed, we impose enormous economic costs on our country and the world for nothing. A few years ago when we decided to use corn to make ethanol, the switch of production from food to fuel caused people to starve in Africa. The light bulb change and refrigerant changes have already cost this country and enormous amount. The EPA rules on coal are about to cause significant issues in energy. So if you are wrong on climate change and we take the actions proposed by the climate change proponents, it will have enormous implications.

It'll have implications. I don't agree that all will necessary be negative.

I agree that ethanol was a bad idea. Not only because it put economic pressure on food production, but because the carbon impact of harvesting, transporting, and converting all that corn made the net impact more substantial than fossil fuels.
I've found the light bulb change resulted in me buying a bulb with lead in it, sure, it takes less power, but when they burn out in < 1 year, I'm going through more of them.. Again, the net economic and environmental impact is negative. However, it's also pushed LED technology a long way in a relatively short time - and I have started to adopt that technology. My guess is the light bulb thing will probably be good long term.

Failures don't mean we can maintain the status quo. We're going to try things that are going to fail. Some are more obvious than others.

Take the governmental and EPA push in vehicle fuel efficiency. Most of you guys probably remember cars that got high single digit mpg with "powerful" motors that put down 350hp. Then came the late 70s and early 80s, fuel economy standards went nuts, price of fuel went nuts. Vehicles got 10-20mpg and were so choked down that a Corvette put down 220hp or so - on the high side. The government still pushed. EPA still pushed. Now, we've got vehicle technology that allows me to drive a 450hp car that easily gets 24 mpg highway. Or a station wagon with 240 ft/lbs of torque that gets 40mpg at 80mph.. And if I want to get a little nuts, I can buy an all electric car that will hit 60 in under 4 seconds and haul all of the VPs to golf.
Part of what's on the back of that is the government requirements for fuel economy - variable valve timing, sequential injection, battery technology.. And those requirements help our fossil fuel supply much more than ethanol ever did.. Heck, even catalytic converters reduce hydrocarbons by a factor of 10.. It's actually pretty amazing if you've ever measured with and w/o a converter.

I like alternative energy. Coal is cheap. It's also dirty. Use it where it makes sense. The alternative energy push in this country, but more so in other countries where energy is more expensive, have made options like solar more and more affordable.... You couldn't touch PV solar 20 years ago. Now, you can break even on it in 10 years. That sorta stuff helps all of us that are headed-off grid for the coming zombie apocalypse.

You make a good point though, that there is some risk in reacting to climate change. And it's the kind of risk that we handle very poorly as a culture. I deem it "Not My Problem" risk... Because it won't be our problem..

[MechAg94]

Cb1000rider, Dr.Hansen who is the big researcher at NASA is a Global Warming activist. He is not objective at all on the subject. After repeated attempts to get his raw data, he finally said it was gone. Other data that has been widely cited from other sources has also been found to be fudged. Since there is no true average temperature of the Earth, the researchers have to average out the data, and some have been proven to have manipulated the data, withheld data, or set up averaging algorithms that give the same result no matter what input is included. The known scandals alone are enough the whole idea should be discredited. If it wasn't for the political push and fundind behind it, I think it would have.

I am almost finished with The Mad Mad Mad World of Climatism by Steve Goreham. It is certainly anti-global warming, but it does a good job of covering the problems with the science, the research, the economics, and the political aspects in a book that isn't too long and names plenty of sources and quotes. I would recommend it if you want to read the other side.

I also disagree with your assumption that we are creating all this heat. I really don't think what we create is very much compared to total solar input and natural sources. I have never heard any global warming proponents talk about that at all.

[MechAg94]

$4 dollar per gallon gas has more to do with consumer push for fuel efficiency. Gas is expensive and people want more range also. I like basic laws on air pollution, but that is not the same thing. CAFE standards probably had an effect, but consumers want fuel efficiency and that is driving things mostly.

[MechAg94]

Wind and solar are dilute, intermittent, and expensive. They will never replace other power options beyond a few percent in a free market without heavy subsidies or regulation.

Everyone always forgets nuclear which is probably the cheapest and most global warming friendly energy source. All the environmentalists still hate it I guess.

[cb1000rider]

So let's throw out NASA. Baldeagle brought up some interesting points and more than one person was poking holes in the data. The fact that NASA alerted to 2014 being the "hottest year" on record (true or not) is just alarmist pandering and makes zero statistical sense when you're looking at a trend of hundreds if not thousands of years.

Any scientist that can't share data is doing it wrong and should be academically fried.

I'm not sure that all the other supporters - and there does seem to be a majority of reputable supporters are all basing their conclusions on one data set. I just read through a bunch of papers at MIT that basically all support the theory humans are influencing climate change... But we could take another college if that "source" isn't conservative enough.

The best that I can get to is "not 100% proven" - guys that are throwing this off a cliff as "not possible", I don't know how you're getting there...

Wind and solar are dilute, intermittent, and expensive. They will never replace other power options beyond a few percent in a free market without heavy subsidies or regulation.

Expensive, yes, but trending downward substantially. Financially feasible enough to provide payback in <10 years - albeit in consideration federal subsidy (these are my economics, not the same for everyone). Without that subsidy, it's not adopted as widely and prices stay higher longer. Long term, the subsidy with disappear. In the mean time, I'll produce my own power and use the grid as necessary to deal with the lack of storage and predictability.

Intermittent - Yes. But predictable (at least solar). What we lack to make them work through the night and through days of no sun is storage technology, but that will come eventually. Wind - I've been "certified" to install it but refused to - I decided it was substantially impractical, at least where I am.. I didn't want to deal with the storage and conversion hassles for clients when essentially they could use the grid for storing energy credit.

You're right though - the grid demand and the availability of solar and wind will not work without storage. So lacking a cheap massive storage, we'll always need traditional fuels. But I think we could easily get to 25% renewable. Maybe more. It's easier to scale traditional fuels up and down based on demand.. And we can at least somewhat predict sunlight and wind within 24-48 hours...

[baldeagle]

The vast majority of scientists are not with you, and James Hansen is one of the perpetrators of the hoax.

So NASA is lying to me? There are no less than 12 references cited.

Yes.

And please don't give me the tired old excuse of consider the sources. The chances of an alternative story about global warming being publicized in the mainstream media is so close to zero it is effectively zero. The only way you're going to find opposing views is to search them out.

OK, so the rules are:
1) Look for alternative opinions to the list in the NASA article I provided, which lists sources.
2) I don't get to consider the source of the information, I just have to consider contrary opinions.

No, that's not what I said. What I said was, don't give me the tired old saw about consider the source, as in, gee, this guy isn't accepted by the consensus people, so he must be lying. You know, the, oh, you got that from Faux News, so we can discard that without even thinking about it canard the left uses prolifically.

I'm generally pretty good at searching for opposing views. A few things sink in with me, outside of the citations of most of the (source considered) scientific community:
1) I'm an engineer, so I understand energy. We've been converting mass into heat for a really long time. It makes sense to me that there might be an impact.

I doubt anyone would disagree with you.

2) I also understand statistics, so regardless of 2014 being the "hottest year" or not, it's statistically meaningless.. (see, I did look at what you provided). Honestly, what you and I notice in our relatively short lives isn't enough evidence of anything.
3) Although I agree the cycles of climate are "normal", that doesn't allow me to rule out the massive impact that we as humans have as part of carving up the earth.

And this is where you and I part ways. The impact of one major volcanic eruption outstrips the entire impact of mankind since time began. (E.g. Krakatoa) Man, in his hubris, THINKS he can change the climate. Nature laughs. Yes, we can mess up micro climates and destroy some species, but we have zero control over major earth cycles, and nothing we can do will help or hurt them in any major way.

4) We haven't been here that long geologic timeline speaking, so I admit that our impact on the earth is fairly hard to prove with 100% certainty. The question is, would I be willing to change my behavior without being 100% factually-infallible certain?

That depends on what changes you ask me to make.

The sources you cited largely point out that NASA and another agency are manipulating temperature data. So, lets accept that as true... How do you account for another 200 reasonably credentialed agencies that have come to the same conclusion without NASA data?

Huh? There are only four sources for temperature data that I'm aware of. NASA, NOAA, WMO and the Brits. Everyone else is dependent upon those data sets.

You cited people poking holes in NASAs data set and I see legitimate concerns in that data set based on what you posted. But the link I provided was scientific consensus outside of that data set. At random, I looked at MITs papers on the subject.. I can't exactly find a lack of consensus there...

They are all using the same data sets, and the data has been doctored. At a minimum that should trouble you.

Is it all a grand conspiracy of the federal government? OK, I could buy that. How about a grand conspiracy in most well respected institutes of higher education? That one is a bit harder for me to buy.

I worked in higher ed for 20 years. It's not hard for me at all. Academics doctor data all the time, increasingly so in the recent decades.

Thinking about it other way, I consider the following:

Say you're right. Climate change is all fallacy and the "science" behind it is a grand conspiracy of epic proportions. Or, well, maybe it's less drastic than that and the scientists that study it are just wrong:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're no worse for wear.
If we do something to reduce our environmental impact, we're also no worse for wear.

I think we should do everything we can, within reason and our budget, to reduce our environmental impact.

Say that you're wrong. And humans are contributing to climate change at a rate that will have substantial (negative) consequences:
If we do nothing and continue on our ways, we're messing up the earth for everyone else. Perhaps irreversibly.
If we do something and reduce our environmental impact, we just make sure that the planet works well for everyone for a much longer period of time.

Assuming you're not 100% sure... And honestly, I'm not 100% sure as it's not factually proven (yet), which choice would you pick?

We HAVE been doing something. In the past 33 years the US has dramatically reduced emissions for CO, SO2, and several other gases. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The point of the global warming movement is to destroy our economies through carbon taxes and onerous environmental regulations to force change now, rather than being intelligent about it and planning for the future. Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources. Good sense says phase them in over time as the technologies mature and become more efficient. The global warming crowd says, destroy the old and use the new, and if that means you can't have heat, oh well. It's one of the greatest threats to freedom that exists now, but the liars have been exposed, so it's losing its power to persuade.

[baldeagle]

Wind and solar are dilute, intermittent, and expensive. They will never replace other power options beyond a few percent in a free market without heavy subsidies or regulation.

Expensive, yes, but trending downward substantially. Financially feasible enough to provide payback in <10 years - albeit in consideration federal subsidy (these are my economics, not the same for everyone). Without that subsidy, it's not adopted as widely and prices stay higher longer. Long term, the subsidy with disappear. In the mean time, I'll produce my own power and use the grid as necessary to deal with the lack of storage and predictability.

The last time I looked at it, which was about 18 months ago, the ROI was 20 years WITH subsidies, but the lifespan of the cells was 20 years, so you're in a vicious cycle. I think the best efficiency now is in the 18-20% range, so they have a ways to go to make cells that will be affordable. I have no doubt we will get there eventually.

Intermittent - Yes. But predictable (at least solar). What we lack to make them work through the night and through days of no sun is storage technology, but that will come eventually. Wind - I've been "certified" to install it but refused to - I decided it was substantially impractical, at least where I am.. I didn't want to deal with the storage and conversion hassles for clients when essentially they could use the grid for storing energy credit.

The problem with wind is you have to get high to take advantage of it, so it would take zoning changes to use it, and the efficiency is fairly low. Plus there's all those dead birds.....

You're right though - the grid demand and the availability of solar and wind will not work without storage. So lacking a cheap massive storage, we'll always need traditional fuels. But I think we could easily get to 25% renewable. Maybe more. It's easier to scale traditional fuels up and down based on demand.. And we can at least somewhat predict sunlight and wind within 24-48 hours...

I think eventually we'll get to 100. There's a guy now working on generating energy from ocean waves that he says could theoretically feed the whole grid. Then there's Solar Roadways, which potentially could provide 100% of the energy needs of the US, including recharge electric cars as they drive on the roadway.

Given the space and time, American ingenuity can solve anything. But having government shove it down our throats by poring billions of our tax dollars down the drain while the nation goes broke? No thanks.

[cb1000rider]

They are all using the same data sets, and the data has been doctored. At a minimum that should trouble you.

The NASA data or all the data? I can get my head around concerns with NASA data. I can't get my head around doctoring all data and no one noticing.
Putting on my tin-foil hat for a moment, what's the end goal of that conspiracy?

I worked in higher ed for 20 years. It's not hard for me at all. Academics doctor data all the time, increasingly so in the recent decades.

I completely agree with you there. Individual academics have been known to do unethical things. However, getting the vast majority of scientific academics to tell the same lie would be a new thing...

I think we should do everything we can, within reason and our budget, to reduce our environmental impact.

That's ridiculously rational and reasonable. And it's hard to argue with that sort of implementation, regardless of which side you're on.

We HAVE been doing something. In the past 33 years the US has dramatically reduced emissions for CO, SO2, and several other gases. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then what exactly are we bucking about here? I understand that imposing tight regulation in the US while China doesn't play by the same rules probably isn't in our best interests, but at the same time, it's like one child refusing to behave because of the behavior of another child.

The point of the global warming movement is to destroy our economies through carbon taxes and onerous environmental regulations to force change now, rather than being intelligent about it and planning for the future. Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources. Good sense says phase them in over time as the technologies mature and become more efficient. The global warming crowd says, destroy the old and use the new, and if that means you can't have heat, oh well. It's one of the greatest threats to freedom that exists now, but the liars have been exposed, so it's losing its power to persuade.

Why would anyone, liberal, progressive, conservative, or communist want to destroy our economy? I really don't think that's the goal. It doesn't feed those in charge. Are we all going to be bareback on horses riding through the woods again? People are selfish and self-directed, as a whole. I'd buy destroy, but only if it provided some benefit to the party pushing the destruction.

Aren't the same types of people, assuming we're willing to stereotype, that are out wanting to tear down the old the same people that think everyone should have heat.. and exactly the same amount of heat. Again, I could buy some utopian agenda, but an agenda that is bent on self-destruction seems like a problem that's very likely to solve itself.

Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources today. That may not be true in the future. And its absolutely no reason to ignore them or fail to develop them. We'll solve those problems. Maybe not in my lifetime, but they will be solved.

The last time I looked at it, which was about 18 months ago, the ROI was 20 years WITH subsidies, but the lifespan of the cells was 20 years, so you're in a vicious cycle. I think the best efficiency now is in the 18-20% range, so they have a ways to go to make cells that will be affordable. I have no doubt we will get there eventually..

It varies quite a bit. I installed solar (largely hobby) because I was interested in it and there was also huge installer margin on it. Generally my net was 35-40% profit. If you don't have a local subsidy on top of federal, it could easily be 20 year payback all in. Areas like Austin have substantial installer requirements, like a 1M (or something) bond payable to the City - so you get less competition and more mark-up.

The lifespan of the cells typically isn't 20 years. You'll see good manufacturers warranty for 20 years with the warranty mark being 80% of original production. So after 20 years, you'll produce less power, but it's still quite a bit.. Typically 70-80% of original install.

The problem with wind is you have to get high to take advantage of it, so it would take zoning changes to use it, and the efficiency is fairly low. Plus there's all those dead birds.....

Those are all valid problems. None of them were my concerns. My concerns were:
1) It generates "wild" AC. You can't feed it into the grid without storing it and regulating it first.
2) Storing power requires batteries. Batteries require maintenance.
3) Moving parts. I've had zero call-backs on solar. Not one moving part. Not one failure. Just considering hail alone, I don't want to maintain those things.

I think eventually we'll get to 100. There's a guy now working on generating energy from ocean waves that he says could theoretically feed the whole grid. Then there's Solar Roadways, which potentially could provide 100% of the energy needs of the US, including recharge electric cars as they drive on the roadway.

I agree..eventually. Based on actual availability of fuel, technology, and some by forced regulation.

[baldeagle]

They are all using the same data sets, and the data has been doctored. At a minimum that should trouble you.

The NASA data or all the data? I can get my head around concerns with NASA data. I can't get my head around doctoring all data and no one noticing.

Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Putting on my tin-foil hat for a moment, what's the end goal of that conspiracy?

Oh that's easy. The lifeblood of academics is filthy lucre. No one provides more of it than taxpayers. If an academic can hit on an idea that becomes politically popular, "scientists" all over the world pick up on it and realize that they can latch onto the gravy train if they can somehow incorporate the idea into their research. So, if you want to study frogs, you write your grant proposal so that you want to study the impact of the big idea on frogs. Viola! Yet get funding.

Meanwhile, some poor sap who wants to study frogs but doesn't incorporate the big idea into his grant proposal gets nothing, because funding for frog studies is fairly limited. It doesn't take long for all academics to catch on, so it's the rare excessively principled fellow who isn't studying the big idea. Of those that do, a troubling large number will say or do anything to get more money. After all, if you do "good" research (the kind that's acceptable to the supports of the big idea), you get not only salary increases and grant increases but invites to big conferences, all expenses paid, invites to testify, all expenses paid, etc., etc. It's a very seductive atmosphere, and only the strongest and most principled can resist it. And in case you haven't noticed, there has been a huge decline in principled people lately due to many derogatory societal changes.

I worked in higher ed for 20 years. It's not hard for me at all. Academics doctor data all the time, increasingly so in the recent decades.

I completely agree with you there. Individual academics have been known to do unethical things. However, getting the vast majority of scientific academics to tell the same lie would be a new thing...

Yes, it's a recent development, and it's because the floodgates opened up for global warming research.

I think we should do everything we can, within reason and our budget, to reduce our environmental impact.

That's ridiculously rational and reasonable. And it's hard to argue with that sort of implementation, regardless of which side you're on.

We HAVE been doing something. In the past 33 years the US has dramatically reduced emissions for CO, SO2, and several other gases. http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/aqtrends.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Then what exactly are we bucking about here? I understand that imposing tight regulation in the US while China doesn't play by the same rules probably isn't in our best interests, but at the same time, it's like one child refusing to behave because of the behavior of another child.

I don't care about China. If they don't want to cooperate, they will suffer. And they are starting to realize that. What I care about is freedom.

The point of the global warming movement is to destroy our economies through carbon taxes and onerous environmental regulations to force change now, rather than being intelligent about it and planning for the future. Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources. Good sense says phase them in over time as the technologies mature and become more efficient. The global warming crowd says, destroy the old and use the new, and if that means you can't have heat, oh well. It's one of the greatest threats to freedom that exists now, but the liars have been exposed, so it's losing its power to persuade.

Why would anyone, liberal, progressive, conservative, or communist want to destroy our economy? I really don't think that's the goal. It doesn't feed those in charge. Are we all going to be bareback on horses riding through the woods again? People are selfish and self-directed, as a whole. I'd buy destroy, but only if it provided some benefit to the party pushing the destruction.

Because once you destroy it, you take control. Then you get to set the rules. You can live like a king while everyone else suffers. What do you care? Look at the leaders of the global warming movement, people like Al Gore. They fly around the world in jets, live in huge houses, consume carbon like there's no tomorrow. Their actions demonstrate their goal. They don't want to conserve. They want YOU to.

Aren't the same types of people, assuming we're willing to stereotype, that are out wanting to tear down the old the same people that think everyone should have heat.. and exactly the same amount of heat. Again, I could buy some utopian agenda, but an agenda that is bent on self-destruction seems like a problem that's very likely to solve itself.

It's not bent on self-destruction. It's bent on conquest. Oh sure, there's plenty of "useful idiots" (as the communist say) supporting them, fooled by the consensus arguments and the FUD about rising tides, dying polar bears and the destruction of life as we know it, but the leaders are simply in it for the money and for conquest. If they win, we become slaves, and they go on living as they always have.

Alternative energy sources are abjectly incapable of replacing current energy sources today. That may not be true in the future. And its absolutely no reason to ignore them or fail to develop them. We'll solve those problems. Maybe not in my lifetime, but they will be solved.

I absolutely believe we should develop them. But we should be sensible about it. Shutting down coal mines is not the answer. Phasing out coal mines is.